3 ms·
I agree that they needed to do something. That something is totally not this. This feels like they want to do whatever is the least amount of work. Kickstart
by Lerc 14y ago
I agree that they needed to do something. That something is totally not this. This feels like they want to do whatever is the least amount of work.
Kickstarter is supposed to be a service, for a share of the income they are supposed to facilitate the connection between creators and audience. Rubber stamping an increasingly bureaucratic set of rules is not the way to do this.
A better solution would have been to add the ability for prospective supporters to voice queries and concerns where they could be seen prominently on the page. Right now it seems the creators receive questions and pick the ones they want to answer and place an update answering the questions.
Even better would be to have Kickstarter assess the creators claims on their ability to deliver and assess queries raised by prospective supporters. That would be a real service offering real value, it would also cost real money. Right now Kickstarter's revenue comes from the fact that Kickstarter is popular. The thing that makes creators choose Kickstarter over another platform is almost entirely due to prominence. That cannot be sustained. Eventually it will have to rest on quality of service. The current set of changes do not increase the quality of service.
- SoftwareMaven 14y agoEven better would be to have Kickstarter assess the creators claims on their ability to deliver and assess queries raised by prospective supporters. I can't imagine that will ever happen. If they vetted projects or teams, it would probably put some liability on their shoulders. They are going to do everything they can to prevent that.