Discussion in 'Guys, what's ISO:FT?' started by Xerographica, Jan 27, 2019.
Pics or it didn't happen.
Congratulations, you've applied the weak axiom of revealed preferences to beer.
I still cant tell if this post is legit or just trolling. It sounds like the dumbest fucking idea so maybe it will make some money in 2019.
Is this basically like untappd but you have to pay money to rate beers?
He likes talking about beer and money.
Hes had back to back hits. It's hard to beat those odds.
Holy fucking wormhole. Our government actually trusted that guy with a gun and the ability to use it???
In the movie “When Harry Met Sally”, she loudly faked an orgasm in a restaurant. Afterwards, the lady at another table told the waitress, “I’ll have what she’s having”. This lady would of course be very disappointed with her dish. She was tricked by Sally pretending that the dish was a lot better than it truly was.
Humans are good at pretending. We’re good at faking pain and pleasure. Well, we aren’t equally good at faking. You're going to be disappointed if you click that link expecting to see women badly faking orgasms. It's a video of a bunch of dudes faking soccer injuries.
Being good at faking hunger is advantageous for an individual, but disadvantageous for the group. No group benefits from the suboptimal distribution of its limited resources. Therefore it was advantageous for the group to correctly discern when an individual was genuinely hungry.
Sure, there’s a physiological explanation for why empty stomachs growl, but it can’t be a coincidence that this credibly signals hunger.
Another way to credibly signal genuine interest in food is to trade for it. Trade helped to correctly rank goods by usefulness, which resulted in a better distribution of resources.
It's easy to say that you fucking *LOVE* some beer. Just like it's easy to give a beer a 5 star rating on some website. But these cheap signals wrongly rank beers, which means that we will waste our money trying the wrong beers. The solution is simple. If we want to credibly vouch for a beer, then we should spend our money to help promote it.
Fuck your mother.
Supply and Demand
In actuality, all you have to do is bitch about the premium member option and there's a >90% chance somebody will buy you one as a joke.
How much money should we spend to help you fuck off?
That’s your takeaway from that scene?
I think it's that she would also like to cum you dumb fuck.
I said that she would be very disappointed with the dish.
I’m very interested, there are a lot of breweries out there that don’t get the credit they deserve and instead of lazy word of mouth campaigning and sending other people in the community the beer to try, it would be nice to have a one stop shop to promote the brews I’m in to. Where does the money we donate go?
If TalkBeer.com gave members the opportunity to use donations to rank beers, then I'd guess that the money would go to this website.
You guess? You have been spoon feeding this bullshit for months and still haven't worked out who gets the money?
I'm certain that spending is better than voting at ranking things. But in terms of the best approach to spending, I'm not so certain.
Ranker.com uses voting to rank things, such as the best German beers. Of course the beers would be far better ranked by spending. Knowing a beer's relative value is far more useful than knowing its popularity.
But what's the best way for people to use their money to rank beers?
Obviously the most common approach is buying beers. In terms of ranking though, there are a couple issues. Naturally you can only buy what's available, which really might not be your first, second, or even third choice. Also, you want to get the best deal possible. The better a deal you get, the greater the disparity between your payment and your valuation. This issue, combined with the first one, guarantee that the amount of money that people spend on buying beers doesn't accurately reflect their real rankings.
If Ranker.com replaced voting with spending, people wouldn't be buying beers, they would solely be using their money to rank them. Here are three approaches...
1. The person who nominates a beer receives all, or some, of the money that people spend on it. Clearly in this case there would be a monetary incentive to try and nominate the most valuable beers. But if it was so easy to correctly guess which beers are the most valuable, then ranking by money (aka "markets") would be a moot point.
2. Ranker.com would receive all, or some, of the money. Then it wouldn't have to plaster stupid ads all over its website. And ideally it would spend the money to fix its site. Right now it's stupid slow.
3. The person who starts the list could specify that the money would be given to BeerTalk.com, for example. What happens if you would love to spend your money ranking beers, but you really hate this website? What happens if the owner of BeerTalk.com uses his money to rank the beers?
None of these three approaches is perfect, but they all give people the opportunity to put their money where their vouch is, which is what makes them far superior to cheap-talk surveys.
backfat rollin over in his grave