Tell HN: Missing service – StackOverflow, but with monetary rewards
There is a market for technical questions that few people _can_ and/or _want_ to answer or work on.
When you need to do research for hours (or even days), you are of course willing to spend a few bucks to get your solution quickly, and get on with your project.
- So you would describe your technical problem, as usual.
- You would then set your monetary reward for the accepted answer.
- You could increase your monetary reward if answers are lacking or coming in too slowly (the list of unanswered questions could be sorted by "reward").
- To make your start easy, you could import your StackOverflow "karma" (points) into your new profile.
54 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadAlso I don’t think this is a Tell HN…
I do not care to learn some obscure, poorly documented API by trial and error. If I could write a failing test or three in a playground then post it in an appropriate chat window and have two or three people claim it at once, with the winner earning 50% of the prize, I would utilize this with some frequency.
The problem with an SO-style solution is that I don't get confirmation that anyone is working on it. So if my project is under a stiff deadline then I have to keep trying myself.
That said, yes, someone please build this. There is a market for people like me that have wasted days on ffmpeg just to get X to do a Y without a Z.
Days? I know I must have wasted weeks, in total.
And not to mention how this can pull you down emotionally/mentally, when you just don't find the solution to your problem. Having someone pull you out of a deep hole is worth money.
I meant for a single bad interface!
In total I shudder to think about all the wasted time.
Sorry for not being able to back this with the original sources.
You think there is a market.
Joel Spolsky and Jeff Atwood discussed this on their podcast back in the early days about making Stack Overflow. They believed that having monetary rewards would create perverse incentives and the psychology of involving money would discourage people from participating - people would balk at $n/answer/vote/whatever thinking it's not worth their time, but would happily spend their free time answering questions for free.
But I can't help but think anyone who launched such a service would end up spending most of their time adjudicating disagreements about whether there should be a payout when a poorly stated question gets a low-effort unhelpful answer.
The power to determine who gets and does not get the money is going to be a very difficult moderation challenge.
And on top of it; the money pool is likely to be very small imo, because there’s already stack overflow which is free.
I don't know their business played out, but lots of dotcoms seemed to focus more on appearance of growth, and IPO cashouts, and the earlier obvious globally-connected-world utopia ideas didn't always do so well.
Experts Exchange's biggest legacy might've been to gain acceptance of "-" in domain names.
How much value can really be added though in the question-answer format that you can't already get for free on StackOverflow?
The answer probably lands somewhere on a sliding scale between "quick answer to an easy coding or api question" at 0 and "team of programmers speccing out and working on a project with delivery by a deadline" at 100.
StackOverflow currently sits at 0 to 10. Gig sites like fiverr at 50, and legacy consulting at 80-90. Maybe the value here is at 25 or 30 on that scale?
Or a tier higher - for SO points. Whenever a question is not answered, throwing a few hundred/thousand points at a bounty gives you so much attention, I don't think you'd be able to get a better answer for money.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/08/09/the-econ-101-manag...
It is worth the read
[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2018/04/06/the-stack-overflow...
I am quite confident that a working professional could give me an excellent answer in about 2 minutes, and I have to say subjectively the question is pretty interesting (not a "how do I <x>" or "do my homework" question). It is unusually hard to Google, Wikipedia doesn't have the right information, and there's only one major enthusiast forum that might have users that know the thing. I'd be willing to pay a token amount, maybe $20, to get the answer. Not that I think $20 is worth getting out of bed for, but given you were already using a Sunday afternoon to answer a few questions, not a bad minutely wage.
I think my main concern is that such a site is likely to become essentially micro-projects, more "do this for me" than "answer my question". And I think people who are paying would be even angrier than usual if their question gets moderated away for doing this.
The boundary is probably not always easy to define. And so I would ask myself - would there even really be a need for such a boundary? Why not simply increase the reward, if your question/problem is bigger than most?
Seems to be working so far. I had a business process question around credit card processing that did not have a straightforward answer and a guy came out of the woodwork with useful things to consider, what impacts the decision one way or another and what he's seen in the past.
I currently have "3.6m people reached" on my Stack Overflow page. I have no idea if this is low or high, but if it was converted to YouTube views or Spotify plays it would pay me about $150,000-$300,000.
Instinctively I feel like there probably could and should be some kind of way to reward people for contributing to (something like) Stack Overflow.
And some employers may not want GH activity made public for concern about leaking working hours or time zone, such as in defense.
I’m sure some wacko hiring departments demand a super active SO profile. They’re irrelevant to the larger discussion tbh.
Having a particular skill, such as "knowing javascript", is also a signal that "pushes already disadvantaged groups further down the list of candidates". So, you tell me.
You're not the first person to think about these issues. This stuff is no different than people publishing their portfolio on artstation, or even on their personal website. And on SO specifically, it's also very similar to having on your CV a list of places you volunteered at: Unpaid jobs to show off your skills.
As an individual I can see listing anything that gives me an edge. As a hiring manager I have to be careful to be fair and feel an obligation to avoid signals likely to filter already disadvantaged groups. So for a manager these considerations do come down to a binary: will this signal be used?
> Having a particular skill, such as "knowing javascript", is also a signal
I'm not advocating removing requirements undeniably needed for a role.
SO, volunteering, and unpaid work aren't generally needed for roles I hire for. Therefore as signals they're less useful, and may tend to bias in favor of those who already have other advantages in life.
> You're not the first person to think about these issues.
Did I suggest I thought I was? And what does it matter if others have considered these things? All of us with hiring power each need to learn what is appropriate, or not, in order to make the best decisions.
When sharing knowledge was to actually inform someone out of pure altruism.
When gaming was about gaming and not money/sponsors.
When social communities (forums) actually gathered people out of pure desire to share common interests.
Those days are long gone, but we get to tell the stories.
Please, no.
Let's stick with a site that is mostly populated by people internally motivated to provide good answers, rather than a site that is mostly populated by people externally motivated by money. The answers will, on average, be poorer, guaranteed.
But more importantly, there's the Jon-Skeet-already-has-a-job problem.
And the handling-payments-is-a-PITA problem.
Ultimately if someone has the money to make an expert answer worth their while, they can hire a consultant.
And if an expert wants to make their living answering questions, they can open a consulting firm.
Good luck.
Or realizes a few hours later that for a complex enough problem it was not a sufficient answer?
Is there an arbitrage service? Because StackOverflow mods already go crazy with power. Add money to the mix ...
But behavioral economics says:
> Sometimes asking someone to do something for nothing is more powerful than paying them. [1]
Also, StackOverflow incurs zero monetary cost. There is a stark difference in people's behavior towards zero cost, even if the price difference is only 1 cent. [2][3]
[1]: https://danariely.com/why-bankers-would-rather-work-for-000-...
[2]: https://web.mit.edu/ariely/www/MIT/Papers/zero.pdf
[3]: https://youtu.be/WS1bwMdgmKc
Basically just like joining the project's IRC channel and hoping that someone has time - but with a guaranteed best effort and quick response.
How is this different? It's usually not a single question where I am able to find an answer, or the community is actually quick and correct enough with an answer - it's more like "hey we used $tech for $thing and we have a feeling we did something wrong because $weirdproblem" and just scree nsharing actual closed source code would be a better explanation than trying to find a minimal repro case.
In a past company we actually tried to find someone like this for a few specific OpenStack things but had no luck. But it wasn't enough to book a consultant for an extended period of time.