The prize definitely seems useful for encouraging deeper, better content. One question: would a smaller, more frequent set of prizes be more effective? Maybe a prize every two weeks?
My intuition says a $1000 top prize won’t generate twice as much impact as a $500 top prize every two weeks—thinking along the lines of prospect theory, where a win is a win and winning $500 is worth a lot more than half of winning $1000; or prison reform literature, where a higher chance of a smaller punishment is more effective in deterring crime than a small chance of a big punishment.
These prize posts probably create buzz and motivate people to begin, improve, and finish their posts; doubling their frequency and halving their payout could be more effective at the same cost.
(Counterargument: the biggest cost isn’t money, it’s time, and a two week turnaround is a lot for moderators. Not sure how to handle that.)
The prize definitely seems useful for encouraging deeper, better content. One question: would a smaller, more frequent set of prizes be more effective? Maybe a prize every two weeks?
My intuition says a $1000 top prize won’t generate twice as much impact as a $500 top prize every two weeks—thinking along the lines of prospect theory, where a win is a win and winning $500 is worth a lot more than half of winning $1000; or prison reform literature, where a higher chance of a smaller punishment is more effective in deterring crime than a small chance of a big punishment.
These prize posts probably create buzz and motivate people to begin, improve, and finish their posts; doubling their frequency and halving their payout could be more effective at the same cost.
(Counterargument: the biggest cost isn’t money, it’s time, and a two week turnaround is a lot for moderators. Not sure how to handle that.)