21 sats \ 2 replies \ @cryptocoin 22 Mar 2022 \ parent \ on: Daily discussion thread
I don't get #2. At first glance, I would guess means it is not yielding qualified applicants, maybe even totally unqualified applicants (?) and responding to those is expensive?
Or, is it just a way of saying it's just too small of audience, not worth the time to even post a job listing?
Do the employers get this data?
- ~jobs page views?
- clicks to the specific job page (SN item)?
- clicks to the Apply link? (can SN even know this?)
Until there's the front page on ~jobs filled with listings, an adjustment to the minimum sats/[day?] price might be helpful, just to at least get SNers in the market to continue looking at the page. Only one or two active listings yet today a week or two after launch likely indicates a number of things, and cost to list is likely one of the significant factors.
They don't get any of that data - easily at least.
Yeah, decreasing the price more might be the move or maybe 1 sat/min just feels expensive if you don't trust the math it does to generate the per month rate. I could do something like 1000 sats/day as the minimum, which is 440 sats/day less than 1 sats/min ... but perhaps it feels significantly cheaper because they can do the math in their head.
reply
yeah.. interesting problem. 2 sided market place is hard.. free is no good but lowering might help populate with listings from the employer side... once more traffic is established then start increasing the treshold to improve listing quality or just allow the auction dynamics to sort things out.
reply