3 ms·

> translation: "we might lose the ability to do our show, because this G+ +1 button introduces friction and a sign-up process we don't expect our users will bot

> translation: "we might lose the ability to do our show, because this G+ +1 button introduces friction and a sign-up process we don't expect our users will bother to complete." Yeah, but he misses the next step in logical thinking which is that the changes will apply to everyone. This new button is for everyone, which means everyone will get less votes which means less are needed for him to continue to run the show.

erichocean 15y ago
Everyone will get less votes in different proportions, based on their audience. It's not a linear adjustment for everyone.
- TomGullen 15y ago
  Of course, but I imagine the proportional increase/decrease will probably be the same with the people he's competing with. That's not the point the author is arguing anyway.
iamgilesbowkett 15y ago
"Yeah, but he misses the next step in logical thinking which is that the changes will apply to everyone." no he doesn't, not at all. he "misses" this step because while it might be logical over the long term for the world on average, it's irrelevant to his business. if you've got a deal in place, based on existing expectations of the number of upvotes, and Google changes how upvotes happen, your existing deal is threatened. it's like if you agree to work for an hourly rate right before your government devalues their currency. I believe what's happening here is he has a certain number of upvotes which he needs to obtain if his show is going to continue. for instance he might have a deal with investors, or he might just want to compete with pre-existing vidoes whose upvotes (achieved under the previous system) are already secure. Google made it harder for him to get upvotes, thus disrupting his business. it's cool to disrupt businesses but if you set yourself up as a platform and then you disrupt businesses built on your platform, that's less cool. that's an unstable platform and a dangerous place to do business.

erichocean 15y ago

Everyone will get less votes in different proportions, based on their audience. It's not a linear adjustment for everyone.

TomGullen 15y ago
Of course, but I imagine the proportional increase/decrease will probably be the same with the people he's competing with. That's not the point the author is arguing anyway.

iamgilesbowkett 15y ago

"Yeah, but he misses the next step in logical thinking which is that the changes will apply to everyone." no he doesn't, not at all. he "misses" this step because while it might be logical over the long term for the world on average, it's irrelevant to his business. if you've got a deal in place, based on existing expectations of the number of upvotes, and Google changes how upvotes happen, your existing deal is threatened. it's like if you agree to work for an hourly rate right before your government devalues their currency. I believe what's happening here is he has a certain number of upvotes which he needs to obtain if his show is going to continue. for instance he might have a deal with investors, or he might just want to compete with pre-existing vidoes whose upvotes (achieved under the previous system) are already secure. Google made it harder for him to get upvotes, thus disrupting his business. it's cool to disrupt businesses but if you set yourself up as a platform and then you disrupt businesses built on your platform, that's less cool. that's an unstable platform and a dangerous place to do business.