Talk:Knowledge market/Archive 1

Comment
I solved the insufficient introduction problem. And as I suspected, it had mothing to do with the content. Albert Simard 23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I presume that my image problem has something to do with syntax. I successfully uploaded an image but is not included because even though I indicated that it is in the public domain, I have been assured by the system that I have not done so. Not a clue of how to fix the problem and I don't intend to waste any more time with it. (readers can see it in the referenced published article).

Help!!!

Albert Simard 16:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits to new virtual section
Rather than discuss with Mrzaius, I've just made the changes I think are best, with the understanding that anyone can revert anything I changed without any hard feelings. A brief summary of my reasoning: ---barneca (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Virtual", I think, is more related to the concept of virtual-reality than to simply web-based. I've replaced the term with internet-based.
 * "Heyday" sounds unencyclopedic to me, although if pressed I couldn't really say why.
 * "Micropayments" refers more to smaller amounts, in the pennies range, not the $2.50 minimum at GA.
 * GA did, indeed leave the beta stage in May 2003. Info buried deep inside one of the GA article's references, but I can probably find it again if necessary.  Google Answers article has it correctly.
 * Cleanup language in a sentence I almost deleted as "not market based" until I read the following sentence, and combine redundant info.

== Greetings!

This article has potential to be great, just needs cleanup, to be made NPOV, and more accessible to new readers. Anyone willing to step forward and give it an attempt? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between a knowledge market an answer site?
Civic Cat (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Limited Answer Quality?
"However, none of these offer more than an increase in reputation as payment for researchers, often limiting the quality of the answers." - Is this really so? It's counter to my experience with paid vs. free answer services. In particular, StackOverflow chose to be a free service to *increase* the quality of the answers by attracting users through being easy to use and dispensing with marketing tactics. I don't have a good citation for this, so I'm not going to reverse the phrase. However, the original statement is also un-sourced. I propose that we remove the statement about answer quality. William (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)