Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

How about letting users flattr Stack Overflow (or other Stack Exchange sites)?

I am not talking about flattring individual users, question, comments or answers. I am suggesting that the whole site could be flattred.

My reasoning: I like to block ads, even on Stack Overflow. I realize that ads are economically important to Stack Overflow. I would personally prefer to micropay for Stack Overflow instead. Letting me flattr Stack Overflow would let me block ads with a clean conscience.

share|improve this question
Republic credits? Republic credits are no good out here. – Richard JP Le Guen Aug 12 '10 at 20:03
I usually block ads but made an exception for Stack Overflow (et al) because I didn't want to deprive them of any ad revenue. The ads you get with > 200 rep are hardly obtrusive. – ChrisF Aug 12 '10 at 21:20
Ugh. Where do they come up with these site names? – Ether Aug 12 '10 at 23:11
My hope around ads is that we can make them so useful you won't even want to block them. – waffles Aug 13 '10 at 1:03
Cough. ExpertsExchange. Cough. – Warren in Toronto Jul 23 '11 at 17:41
@wafles: How could an ad ever be "useful"? – endolith Apr 30 '12 at 21:50
up vote 6 down vote accepted

For the life of me, I've never understood Jeff's position on this. It makes no sense.

If someone really wants to give you money without further expectations, why on Earth would you say no?

"Oh, I'm sorry, I don't like money. No... no. Really. It's not my thing. Thanks for the offer, though." **

If I PayPal $100 to will it be accepted or rejected?

** Jeff seems to talk about dogfood a lot, so maybe he doesn't like money. I dunno.

share|improve this answer
In some culture's it's considered the height of rudeness to pay someone for a service that they provide out of love. I tried to pay my brother-in-law for doing 8 hours of plumbing in my new bathroom and my wife stopped me saying that he would get offended if I did. Also, it can create a negative culture, or a culture of "I've donated, I should be priveliged" etc. Maybe not from you, but others... – Mark Henderson Aug 12 '10 at 23:15
@Farseekr: Re the first part: Donations are, by definition, optional, so I don't see the issue there. If a user thinks it's rude to donate, then don't donate. Re the second part: That's just a byproduct of a business. Let's say SO, Inc. publishes a book of some kind. There will still be people saying "I bought the book and supported the company, now implement my feature request." It's inescapable. Heck there are people now saying "I've answered lots of questions, now implement my feature request" without any money being involved. – Jon Seigel Aug 12 '10 at 23:57

Other requests to allow donations to SO have been politely declined.

Here is Jeff's response to a similar request:

As for donations, we appreciate the sentiment, for sure, but you guys and gals are already contributing the most valuable thing of all — your time!

We will never ask you for more than that, you’ve already been extremely generous!

share|improve this answer
So if I contribute my time, I am morally justified in blocking SO ads? – Klas Mellbourn Aug 12 '10 at 20:02
@Klas - no one can tell you if you are "morally justified". That's entirely up to you. I would only go so far as to suggest that if you feel justified to block ads elsewhere, you shouldn't feel any differently about doing so here. – user27414 Aug 12 '10 at 20:05
This is what makes the SO family far superior to that "other" experts site. – squillman Aug 12 '10 at 20:25

I support Jeff's decision on this.

  1. it takes resources and time to set up payment methods. It's not free -- it's taking time away from implementing (and supporting) other things.

  2. it promotes the idea that if you've paid, you aren't obligated to do other things. It alters the equation that we use in using the site. "I've paid my $0.50 this month; I'm not bound by that normal rule that I have to do ..." (where these things include everything regular participants gladly do on the site for free -- not just contribute content, but also janitorial duties etc).

I think there was a article at some point discussing how once one incentivizes an activity with a cold hard metric, people stop doing it for free and start expecting payment, but I can't find it right now.

share|improve this answer
I've paid my $0.50 this month; I'm not bound by that normal rule that I have to do - spot on. That's the attitude that some people take about church offerings too. – Mark Henderson Aug 12 '10 at 23:16

Looking at your associated accounts, you've already reached the point (200 rep) on a couple of sites where most ads are hidden anyway. What more do you want?

share|improve this answer
+1 for stalking – James Aug 12 '10 at 20:52
Klas doesn't want to see any ads. That's what's more. – Peter Ajtai Aug 12 '10 at 22:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .