4 ms·

If the point is to make sure that the backers do not make decisions uninformed, why not take time to add a curated risk score. This way, the projects will be re

If the point is to make sure that the backers do not make decisions uninformed, why not take time to add a curated risk score. This way, the projects will be responsible in providing proper evidence about how far they are in production, and you can help us figure out if they are really on track. For instance, a project which can provide a list of parts, is probably further in the process than one which only has CAD sketches; but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't be interested in backing the project in its infancy. It shouldn't be too hard for you to come up with an acceptable process of evaluation, and hire experts to do it. Heck, we pay a cut to KS anyway, why not throw in a better service in return.

mertd 14y ago
That's probably way more involvement than KS is willing to deal with. Also, no matter how many disclaimers they put, the curated score would put some of the liability on KickStarter's side, which I'm sure they definitely would not want.
utopkara 14y ago
If KS is serious in what they are doing, they shouldn't try patches like putting arbitrary rules, but take action to solve the problem directly. Project funding is their core business after all. Apple does it with their App Store, and without their curation, probably the store would have turned into a bigger garbage pile than it is now, to the point of being unusable.
- gms7777 14y ago
  > Apple does it with their App Store, and without their curation, probably the store would have turned into a bigger garbage pile than it is now, to the point of being unusable. Ummm, I know its not your primary point, but I'm not entirely sure about this statement. Look at the android app store (Google play) in comparison. It doesn't have that same curation as the Apple version, and certainly there are a lot of useless apps on it, but it is by no standard "unusable". In fact, in my experience, I prefer looking for apps on the Google version than the Apple because for almost any purpose its easy to find an amateur low cost or free app. This generally isn't the case in the apple version
smackfu 14y ago
Then people just have a greater reason to complain if a project with a low risk score fails.

mertd 14y ago

That's probably way more involvement than KS is willing to deal with. Also, no matter how many disclaimers they put, the curated score would put some of the liability on KickStarter's side, which I'm sure they definitely would not want.

utopkara 14y ago

If KS is serious in what they are doing, they shouldn't try patches like putting arbitrary rules, but take action to solve the problem directly. Project funding is their core business after all. Apple does it with their App Store, and without their curation, probably the store would have turned into a bigger garbage pile than it is now, to the point of being unusable.

gms7777 14y ago
> Apple does it with their App Store, and without their curation, probably the store would have turned into a bigger garbage pile than it is now, to the point of being unusable. Ummm, I know its not your primary point, but I'm not entirely sure about this statement. Look at the android app store (Google play) in comparison. It doesn't have that same curation as the Apple version, and certainly there are a lot of useless apps on it, but it is by no standard "unusable". In fact, in my experience, I prefer looking for apps on the Google version than the Apple because for almost any purpose its easy to find an amateur low cost or free app. This generally isn't the case in the apple version

smackfu 14y ago

Then people just have a greater reason to complain if a project with a low risk score fails.