For Quirky's eyes only

Edit Subject

Thanks Nathanial- Can I get influence on this please??
(lol)

Yes the point about past interactions is very true- I think we have to just disregard this point- it will become self - evident to Q if its being used as a 'bring it down" tool, Plus- if suggestions are going to rewarded in someway with influence- it is in a members interest to be seen to be truly unbiased and professional in their use of this feature. The deterrent is that if Q get a sniff of bad blood being spilled - Q can just pull the plug on that member.

Would you think it best to only have the feature available post UC selection?
I am not sure on this- as there are pros and cons for doing it before and after.

In terms of how to reward members- I would seriously consider putting a project up and getting people to put forward their ideas - which could be voted on etc?
This would also help with buy in from the member group- so that when (if) it did start people would be already with the program as it were.

So when you submit an idea you can immedialy start to wonder who is saying what behind your back. This could breed fear or reluctance to submit an idea and have the effect of reducing the free flow of creative expression. I would like to see more collaboration. But it needs to be out in the open. The ideator should have chance to respond and defend his submission. Perhaps the suggestions or edits can be open to the community for a vote. We need more team work on ideas before they are chosen.

It is best to think about this from Q's point of view. people are saying things openly and behind peoples backs all the time anyway. The issue is we need to stop ideas getting though that are fatally flawed- not bend to some ideators who want feedback and those that don't. The ideator should have thought about their idea before submitting it- ideas that go on should be thought through- that's the point of it.

I gaurantee you that most people do not want to hear their idea being run down on a fundamental show stopping point- so to post it in the idea itself is never gonna work- some may post- some may be scared to say bad things eitherway- end result- broken system. Having it confidential takes away the risk of some things not being said.

Put yourselves in the mind of Q. Its about cold hard cash to invest in something good or something shaky- would you rather have the ugly news too before you sign the check to go ahead?

Why not just make comments anonymous to the ideator? QUirky knows who submitted it, the ideator sees words. Comments can be honest and the commenter should not fear comment retaliation.

Comments could be monitored by Quirky for usefulness (or retaliation).

Personally, I would appreciate additional criticism on my ideations, and give responses to those who make comment and make suggestions. If my concept has a flaw which I didn't foresee I'd like to be made aware so that I could give that weakness some attention. Quirky is a crowd-development site which means that one has an idea, yet the rest of the family help to improve the original concept to be the best it can be. What I would really like is to receive feedback from the Q staff as this would help to understand why my ideation hasn't been picked to go on to UC.

BTW...couldn't a Q member who has an ideation which he feels is being unnecessarily bashed by another member alert Q of this bashing?
In any regard, there should be a reporting method for those who act out of line. They should be given a warning first, and if they continue they should be punished by Q.

Split the collaboration system from the selection system - and this concern mostly disappears.

If neither "positive" comments nor "critical" comments effect whether the idea is chosen, submitters will have little incentive to prefer the positive over the critical, and commenters will have little incentive to leave other than real, helpful comments.

Currently, a person who votes for an idea has the incentive to leave a positive comment, so it's more likely to be picked and they are more likely to receive %.
And submitters want the positive comments, even if they are meaningless and include spam.
In the same way, both the submitter and those who vote for an idea have the incentive to attack those who leave a critical comment, whether it is useful or not.

(So, because of self-interest, the current system is rife with manipulation, and has very little collaboration about ideas.)

If the staff is not using comments to help them decide, and the voters are not using comments to help them vote, then the only incentive left for commenting is to be helpful (or occasionally bash the submitter) - but, in either case, the submitter no longer fears their effect on the selection process, and manipulation is replaced with collaboration.

(This suggestion is generally about controlling the effects of self-interest on the system.)

Here's my input (Discussed in more detail in this forum thread: http://www.quirky.com/forums/topic/9815)
How about the idea submitter has control of whether any comment is publicly displayed? Then even submitters would get more comments and feedback.

If 25 people let Q know the same reason why something is going to fail- two things are pretty sure to happen. 1. The idea will fail. 2. Q will not invest in it.

Job done.