denise: Image: Me, facing away from camera, on top of the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome (Default)
Denise ([staff profile] denise) wrote in [site community profile] dw_biz2012-02-13 03:45 pm

feature design brainstorming: icon add-ons

We said last month that [staff profile] mark's next big project is going to be icon add-on packs to let people buy more icon slots if they want, and this week he and I have been brainstorming ideas to make it work in the quickest, easiest, and most usable fashion. This is what we're currently thinking the system will look like, for you guys to mull over and point out all the things we've no doubt forgotten to think about. ;)

Goal: To let people buy as many icon slots as they want (up to whatever limit we impose for overall performance reasons), as simply and easily as possible.

We started out with the idea that this should be something the user can decide (how many slots you want), not sold in pre-specified numbers of icon packs that stack on top of each other. We kicked around a few ideas for a while of how to make that work (such as paying per icon slot per month, etc), but everything we tried to come up with got really confusing very quickly: we would have had to track a lot of different things, and explaining pro-rating to people is really hard, and it would've been really hard to add more icons later if you decided you didn't have enough.

So, our current working theory: we will charge you up front for each icon slot you want to add, and paying for another icon slot will give you that slot permanently, for whenever you have a paid account. (We have a vague idea of what each slot will cost, but it's not set in stone yet, so I don't want to commit to anything; I'll use the variable $amount while I'm explaining, in order to avoid making any promises.) If your paid account expires, you'll go back to the number of icons a free account gets; if you renew your paid account, you'll go back up to the paid account icons + your add-ons.

It's probably easiest to talk through some practical examples of common scenarios, so everyone's on the same page: let's say that I have a premium paid account, so I have 250 icons. I want 270 icons. I pay $amount to permanently buy those 20 icons; my icon slots go from 250 to 270. In a year, my premium paid time is about to expire, so I renew it for another year; I only have to pay the $50 to renew the premium paid time, and my icon slots stays at 270, not the 250 a premium paid account usually gets, because I bought those 20 icons permanently.

Next year, my premium paid account expires (back down to 15 icons, curses!), and I'm kind of low on cash, so I decide to renew it as a regular paid account ($35 for the year; 100 icons), not a premium paid account. But! I previously bought those 20 extra icon slots. Those still exist, but they're applied to the paid account icon limit (100 icons), not the premium paid account icon limit (250 icons): I'd have the 100 icon slots a paid account usually gets, plus the 20 I permanently bought, for 120 icons.

After a few months, though, I decide I can't live with only 120 icons, and I decide to buy some more. I pay $amount to permanently buy another 50 icon slots. My new icon count is now 170: the 100 for a paid account, the 20 I previously bought, and the 50 I just bought.

When account renewal comes around, I decide I miss the premium paid account benefits, so I renew as premium paid ($50 for the year; 250 icons). I now have the 250 icon slots that come standard with a premium paid account, plus the 20 I bought a long time ago, plus the 50 I bought recently, for a total of 320 icons.

So, you're only buying the icon slots once, and they last forever -- but, you have to have a paid account to access them. (This is to avoid people buying just icon slots, which is bad for us from a business standpoint based on how we set our account limits. For an explanation of why you won't be able to just buy icons without a paid account, see two old mailing list messages I wrote back when we were in development: #1, which explains why you can't buy paid features a-la-carte, and #2, which specifically gets into icons.)

We'll be pricing icon slots based on the cost to support them over time, so you'd pay more up-front than you would in a yearly, expiring type deal. You'll never have to pay again, though, so it will be cheaper in the long run.

What if you want to switch to using a different account, though, the way we know roleplayers like to do? You'd be stuck paying the up-front cost over and over again for each account, which would not be very fair! So, instead we make it possible for you to switch icon slots from account to account.

Let's say I have two accounts, [profile] x and [profile] y. [profile] x is a premium paid account (250 icons) and I bought 50 extra icon slots for it over time (total of 300 icons). [profile] y is a paid account (100 icons). I decide I want to stop using [profile] x and switch to using [profile] y instead: I can go to the icon slot mover tool and say "switch my extra icon slots", and move the 50 extra slots from [profile] x to [profile] y. Now [profile] x has 250 icon slots (the standard with the premium paid account), and [profile] y has 150 icon slots (the standard 100 with the paid account + my 50 extra slots that I bought).

(We may charge a small amount to move icon slots from one account to another, especially if it's been a while since you bought them, like the way we charge for a rename token. But we haven't decided that yet; it will depend on what the numbers look like when we diagram the costs of all this out more fully.)

There will be a limit on how many slots you can buy at first -- this is because the system isn't very optimized for large numbers of icons, either for resource usage or for the user interface of displaying and selecting large numbers of icons. (We can fix that over time, and we will! But that will take time, and we'd rather release the feature with a lower limit now than wait. Whatever limit we pick when we release it will almost certainly be raised later once we can do the work.) It's also possible that we might have two limits, and charge $amount for each slot up to limit #1, and $amount*2 for each slot from limit #1 to limit #2, but that, too, will be up in the air until we can really plot out the technical and business details of this way of doing things.

So, if this is all still up in the air, why am I posting about it now? Simple: We know that we can't know everything about how people use their accounts and how people want to use their icons. So, consider this the open invitation to pick holes in this plan: what kind of usage are we forgetting to think about/account for? What problems do you see?

(Also, because I know a lot of people are really sweet about worrying what this will mean for us-as-a-business: we already did all the back-of-the-envelope feasability tests, and this should remain feasable over time. We're gambling that the cost of disk space, bandwidth, and processor power will continue to go down over time the way it's been going, historically, so the pay-once model for icons should work fine for us -- and because it will be tied to paid accounts we won't be promising future services without any additional income the way we would for seed accounts.)

[personal profile] rho 2012-02-13 10:47 pm (UTC)(link)
I have no interest in this personally (I don't even know how many icons I'm allowed; so long as it's higher than 0, I'm happy) but this seems like a sensible system. My biggest concern would be what would happen with compromised accounts.

For instance, user x has 20 extra icon slots. They also have an email address on hotmail that expired two years ago and a password of blink182. User y says "yoink" and takes their account, then transfers the icon slots over to their own account.

This isn't too hard to deal with (solution: baninate user y, give user x the icon slots back) but it's worth considering to make sure you have the robust admin back-end that will make doing so easy.
mark: A photo of Mark kneeling on top of the Taal Volcano in the Philippines. It was a long hike. (Default)

[staff profile] mark 2012-02-14 06:50 am (UTC)(link)
Thanks for bringing this up! I will add this to my little todo list to keep this in mind in implementation.
usesprotection: (pic#2385345)

[personal profile] usesprotection 2012-02-14 10:04 pm (UTC)(link)
If someone doesn't log into an account for over two years and the email is defunct, they obviously aren't coming back for it.
fashenforcement: (fancy a shut up)

[personal profile] fashenforcement 2012-02-14 10:09 pm (UTC)(link)

[personal profile] rho 2012-02-14 10:44 pm (UTC)(link)
To clarify, I was using the example as a shorthand to refer to any situation where someone gains unauthorised access to someone else's account. This includes:

* guessed passwords
* gaining control of the connected email address
* phishing
* use of keyloggers
* people leaving their account logged in on public computers
* etc.

One of the most common ways taht people get into accounts that aren't theirs is by registering the defunct email address that was used to create an account. I know that Mark and Denise both know this, hence why I used it in my example. I wasn't trying to say that this is the only case where it could be relevant.

(Also, you'd be surprised how many people do come back after years away. Certainly most accounts that have been abandoned for that long will stay abandoned, but there's a non-negligible minority who do come back.)
usesprotection: (pic#1624598)

[personal profile] usesprotection 2012-02-14 10:49 pm (UTC)(link)
So on a case-by-case basis, you have 99% of those people never coming back, which leaves them as owners of names and icon space someone else would actually use, and the 1% who may come back three years later and genuinely care that their account was recycled by someone else.

Maybe 0.5% of that 1% would make a stink about it instead of just making a new username. I was on LJ for seven years, saw the rise and fall of GJ/Inksome, and I have seen what people do with usernames. If someone doesn't log into an account for a year/two years or something, has no journal entries, it should become available for use again; LJ promised this numerous times. Ironically, they never followed through until we all left.
usesprotection: (pic#2385342)

[personal profile] usesprotection 2012-02-14 10:54 pm (UTC)(link)
Also, people remaking defunct emails to gain access to an abandoned username is something they only started doing because it would otherwise never get used. LJ wouldn't delete inactive accounts despite saying they'd purge every year or so.

Now, on the other hand, people who made a business of stealing usernames to sell, that to me is very underhanded. I don't agree with that at all. I agree with nabbing a name because no one is obviously coming back for it and you have plans for it. If the account has entries and people's personal stuff, again that's also different.

I'm talking just namesquatters.
usesprotection: (Default)

[personal profile] usesprotection 2012-02-14 11:07 pm (UTC)(link)
I didn't say someone who logs in every 2 months to read whatever, I was talking specifically about accounts that have

-Not been logged into for years
-No entries
-Less than, say, 100-200 comments

It isn`t fair that during the migration a a month or two ago, people took upwards of 25 usernames just for the sake of having them, and will never touch them again. Even if a policy on it isn`t considered now, it`d be nice to see one down the line, is all I am saying.
pauamma: Cartooney crab holding drink (Default)

[personal profile] pauamma 2012-03-18 08:22 pm (UTC)(link)
It isn`t fair that during the migration a a month or two ago, people took upwards of 25 usernames just for the sake of having them, and will never touch them again.
I don't know where denise and mark set the namesquatting limit, so I can't say on which side your specific example would fall, but with that proviso, I would expect the pattern you describe qualifies as such. (And if it doesn't, I'm sure someone who can speak authoritatively will correct me.)
-Not been logged into for years
I'm not sure where I'd want the limit to be if that became available at all, but IMO 3 years (the time Dreamwidth has existed) would be way too low as a limit, so no account that currently exists should be eligible for username reclaiming. (I wouldn't want the limit to be under 30 years, personally. Or maybe 300.)
-No entries
-Less than, say, 100-200 comments
I wouldn't want an account that posted *any* comments to be eligible for username reclaiming. (I'm also leaning toward "no reclaiming unless the account owner deleted it", but I'm not deadset against that.)

(Disclaimer: [personal profile] bradfitzindrag is one of my alternate accounts. I wouldn't part with that username willingly unless Brad Fitzpatrick himself asked me to.)
usesprotection: (Default)

[personal profile] usesprotection 2012-02-14 11:19 pm (UTC)(link)
I guess I should put an addendum that I am part of the RP community who often have a very different perspective on username squatting. The sorts of names people typically want purged are "trend" names that get grabbed up "just in case" and then get forgotten about.

This includes a character's name, nouns, adjectives (hence why LJ had a prolific number of usernames ending in "-ed", "-ing" "-ly", etc), and other shorter usernames under ten letters.

I respect your stance on it and your respect towards account-holders and while I disagree, it's your policy and we should honor it.