The issue is why would people come to this site to click 'I'd use this' or 'I support this'. (Ideas will flow in no problem, they're a dime a dozen.)
So we need to provide feedbackers with incentive.
1. Reward them? Oops…nothing to stop them going around and supporting them everything and game the reward system.
2. Reward them based on their choices (and limit their votes)? Nope…these are just ideas. There's no way you can tell if the idea will be successful even with enough support backers. Takes much longer to develop etc.
3. Give them the option to back good ideas (put their money where their mouth is)? Nope…then it's just Kickstarter.
4. Curate the people evaluating the apps. Gather some people that have skills and well informed about their field. Tech/Design/etc. Then you'll be able to get real feedback from those who knows what they're talking about. It's not a guaranteed hit/miss but I think the result would be better than mass voting from randoms.
I would disagree about needing incentives/rewards to get people voting. You are the counterargument to your own comment. You just commented on this idea here on HN, for free, with no incentive and no reward. People like us often love to see new ideas, and comment on them and join in a discussion with the founders. "This is great", "I don't think this will work", "this would be better if...", "what are you planning to do about..."
LaunchSky is "Hacker News for Ideas Not News"
I've dreamed of having something like this before, and I would love to see LaunchSky do it. I think I would go there often enough to see other people's ideas and provide my own.
I think this is best aimed at the same people that like Hacker News, NOT the general Facebook population.
Of couse there is an incentive for me to comment here on HN.
1. It's a community, there's give & take. Who knows one day I may need HN's help. I want to be treated the same way others treat me - golden rule.
2. This place is full of smart people. I'd listen carefully to what everyone has to say. If it's just mass voting from randoms, it'll get nowhere. Hence my 4th point in the original comment.
3. Being part of the community, actively, builds connects and networks. If LaunchSky is going to be community oriented, I think that'd be a great avenue to explore.
So I'd disagree about how there's no incentive or reward for me to comment here.
I'd like to think the same, but from a numbers standpoint -- we're probably going to need a fairly clear incentive for the "reviewer/early adopter" side.
It's going to be a balance of quality vs. volume of reviewers, but these will all be some fun challenges to figure out and tackle.
edit: Your comment (after re-reading) made my day.
I commented below regarding this issue of voting for free and it not costing them anything.
I feel like, after reading your comments parent and your reply that I'm replying to, I feel that it might be beneficial to have each user on the site have a weight calculated from various criteria (that probably doesn't exist yet).
Firstly let's assume that submitted ideas have a lifecycle, something like this:
Inception (posting to the site)
Green-lit (threshold of submitters required Yes votes)
Lack of Interest (threshold not met)
Released (product launch)
Let's say a project reaches Release (from our above defined lifecycle), all users who voted "Yes, I would use this" for the project might need to verify they've used the app or risk having their weight ratio degraded (thus making future "Yes, I would use this" votes count for less). If the project they 'backed' fails then there is no change to the weight.
This solves one side of the problem for idea submitters. They should be able to view something like an "Interest Index" which takes into account the weight of users who have stated they would use it.
Eventually if I clicked "Yes, I'd use this" on 40 projects and 20 of them reached release and yet I never followed through with using them, my vote might not count for squat any longer.
How about you offer some pricing with the idea and then give backers a discount? Might work with a mail list, people sign up to get an opportunity for discounts on potential products they'd like to use. Would skew the audience but that's going to be the case with any incentive.
Exactly. And the problem with #4 is that in trying to round up people the community trusts/knows by name, you're also going to end up bringing in people that have personal and professional connections that could also game the system.
We definitely don't have the product figured out to 100% just yet, but the assumption is that people are quicker to support (and give their email if it's secured) than to pay (a la kickstarter).
The rest of the details, we surely have to figure out. That's why I've got the link here, for amazing feedback like the original comment we're both replying to :)
The problem I see with it is a scenario like this, which others have brought up:
1. User X (a non-technical) posts an idea that gets a little traction, but not enough for them to feel confident enough to build it out, especially when it means finding a team to do so.
2. Named Techie sees the project, likes the premise a lot, and knows User X doesn't have the resources.
3. Named Techie's friends post their concept with beautiful mockups and a more defined description and Named Techie highlights the project and it hits the front page -or- Named Techie's friends just launch the site without needing the validation, and through their network are able to have a fairly successful launch.
4. User X sees this, rages all across the internet, and you get bad press (and more trolls to boot).
In the event that Named Techie has the advantage of seeing all of these new concepts coming in and the public only sees them once they're approved by him, that's going to spawn some conflict of interests.
Even if all entries are public, you'll run into what we see on Show HNs.. like the one for 2u.fm yesterday where some idiot thought it would be a good idea to reply to as many people as possible who liked the concept to tell them that it was a complete ripoff of some other site (which it wasn't) or all of the people that constantly hate on the fact that someone would even think their project was a good idea.
Additionally, most of the concepts on the site aren't going to be exclusive to the person that's posting them, and having to deal with trolls or 'ownership' wars isn't something I'd want to bother with. Trying to fight this by only allowing members with some form of 'clout' to comment creates the issue I have with Kickstarter, where until you've put money into the project, you can't ask a question about it publicly.
I'm also concerned that too many people will place too much weight on the feedback they receive. The idea may very well be game-changing, but there's no way to know unless it's fully fleshed-out. Knowing how people react to having their dreams shattered, I just don't think this site is a good idea. If you really need validation, use a site like Reddit with a broad enough userbase (or a specific subreddit) to get the feedback you need.
The issue is why would people come to this site to click 'I'd use this' or 'I support this'. (Ideas will flow in no problem, they're a dime a dozen.)
So we need to provide feedbackers with incentive.
1. Reward them? Oops…nothing to stop them going around and supporting them everything and game the reward system.
2. Reward them based on their choices (and limit their votes)? Nope…these are just ideas. There's no way you can tell if the idea will be successful even with enough support backers. Takes much longer to develop etc.
3. Give them the option to back good ideas (put their money where their mouth is)? Nope…then it's just Kickstarter.
4. Curate the people evaluating the apps. Gather some people that have skills and well informed about their field. Tech/Design/etc. Then you'll be able to get real feedback from those who knows what they're talking about. It's not a guaranteed hit/miss but I think the result would be better than mass voting from randoms.