I know how awesome it is to make extra money, but I think something needs to be implemented to better reward better deals because it's great deals that make a deal site survive and thrive, and if it dies you loose your income from such a site anyway, in addition to the loss of the potential for a great deal site to save you money when you need or want to spend.
If keeping the reward value were essential then perhaps a higher reward value for fewer posted deals, only awarded to deals making a certain threshold of quality. I'm not sure how to do that with a low participant crowd, though, as that will make it too easy for some to have assistance in getting their posted deals ranked high, making it harder (and less enjoyable) for you honest hard workers when these crooks start pouring in, until caught anyway.
One of the problems I see as of now is the forums feel too farmed and unorganized. Too many deals without any feedback makes for a less than optimal experience. With so many deals we need a lot of feedback to rank and sort them.
So how do we pull in more participation? As much as Scott's already spending to promote the site, increased compensation sounds economically unsound, and as displayed by other sites: compensation for such participation needs to be (or at least feel) high when quality is parallel, but compensation can come in the form of the posting of great deals submitted by others that save you hundreds, or at least make you feel like you saved hundreds even if all you really did was spend more but get a lot more for your spending. The other earners of these sites appear to be the partners involved in the profitability of the site. These employees or partners spend a great deal of time and effort scouring for great deals to post on their site in an effort for compensation based upon the very success and profitability of the site which should amount to a far greater payback that $1/deal. |