reply on: Request for comments: improving our referral system \ stacker news ~meta

100 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 28 Jun \ on: Request for comments: improving our referral system meta

We talked about this last time it came up, but I prefer a cumulative approach to the switching one.

I.e. whenever you use one of my referral links I get an increased share of referral revenue from you.

It probably should be bigger than it is now. Referrals are very important for site growth and none of us generate very many. That sounds like something that needs to pay more to me.

69 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b OP 28 Jun

I dug it up: #506806

I was overthinking in my response. All a stacker needs to know is "I share links and get sats."

Your idea prevents gaming the timing of someone clicking on referral link too.

Here's another post from kr a few months earlier: #259322

@sorukumar shared an article that I missed.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 28 Jun

I forgot about @kr's suggestion to use "last person zapped". I like that, too.

42 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b OP 28 Jun

We could even make it compatible with your idea and @ek's idea.

Any action/appreciation you inspired in another stacker, earns you a share of their referrals.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 29 Jun

From the article, it sounds like maybe SN referrals are working about as well as they can be expected to.

Expect less than 10% of your users to convert a successful referral.

Also, they recommend having a data scientist involved in the planning, although they don't say why exactly. If you figure out why you should have one, I volunteer my services.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 29 Jun

Given how little time we've put into referrals, if we're already achieving 10%, we should be able to do a lot better.

I don't know why we'd need a data scientist yet but I volunteer to let you volunteer.