pull down to refresh
we don't really think about SN as putting a price on front page space
Because it doesn't, not really. Most posts get to the top because of others zapping them, not the poster paying. So we don't think of it as a price to get it to the top, but rather as a result of SN's own incentive to surface posts that its users enjoy.
Of course, ever post shares space with each other, so if you do happen to want to pay to promote your own piece, then yes you can see it as the cost to boost it to the top. It's not a one time fee though, you gotta keep paying to keep it on top.
most posts get to the top because of others zapping them, not the poster paying.
Why does it matter who pays the price? The only way to get on the front page is for someone to pay for the space (either the poster or other stackers). I frequently make the calculation of how much it will cost to get a certain post I want to zap onto the front page. I do this because I want other stackers to notice it. For instance, I zapped raw avocado's Gox post shortly after he posted it because I wanted to make sure other stackers wouldn't miss it. Sure, some of the calculation is my desire to zap raw avocado because he did a great job with it and I want to incentivize him to do more, but that was not my primary motivation.
I suspect SN is easier to use if one thinks about the front page as an auction for space (visibility?).
It also addresses somewhat the problem of an incentive to zap. In the past, I've felt that the main incentive to zap is to encourage posters to post more things of that kind. But it means that a zap is kind of a good will payment or value for value. But if zapping is actually about paying for space, the incentive is different: it's to bring something to other stacker's attention.
I think it's all of the above. It's v4v tipping, it's incentivizing further production of future content, and it's paying to influence what others see.
This makes me wonder what the price of getting a post on the front page of SN is.
This post (#1442015) has 3694 sats in zaps and is in the top spot.
On my mobile, this post (#1442045) is just above the fold and has 1324 sats in zaps.
(Both posts were posted in the last 4 hours, so we don't have to worry about time decay)
So it seems like the price to get on SN's front page today is more than 1300 sats or so. But SN's is a dynamic market, so that price might change depending on what other people are willing to pay.
The front page is rationed by perceived subjective value. The question I have is: is the fact that it works this way still too opaque? Because I get the sense (even from my own self) that we don't really think about SN as putting a price on front page space. But perhaps, I've just been dense.
I think people have been reluctant to put a price on social media things like distribution or visibility or followers. Probably for lots of good reasons. And so maybe that's why I haven't previously thought of SN as doing this. But it may be what I was trying to get at in #1406771.
It's also why I've really been interested in the move SN has made to remove trust. Trust messes up pricing. It's interesting that so many different platforms rely on it. If pricing works for allocating parking or lane space, why shouldn't it work for allocating visibility in social media?