I commented below regarding this issue of voting for free and it not costing them anything.
I feel like, after reading your comments parent and your reply that I'm replying to, I feel that it might be beneficial to have each user on the site have a weight calculated from various criteria (that probably doesn't exist yet).
Firstly let's assume that submitted ideas have a lifecycle, something like this:
Inception (posting to the site)
Green-lit (threshold of submitters required Yes votes)
Lack of Interest (threshold not met)
Released (product launch)
Let's say a project reaches Release (from our above defined lifecycle), all users who voted "Yes, I would use this" for the project might need to verify they've used the app or risk having their weight ratio degraded (thus making future "Yes, I would use this" votes count for less). If the project they 'backed' fails then there is no change to the weight.
This solves one side of the problem for idea submitters. They should be able to view something like an "Interest Index" which takes into account the weight of users who have stated they would use it.
Eventually if I clicked "Yes, I'd use this" on 40 projects and 20 of them reached release and yet I never followed through with using them, my vote might not count for squat any longer.
This strikes me as a clone of Kickstarter but in place of funding you're giving people the ability to vote, and vote for free.
I think it has its uses but ultimately to me, votes hold no value because they aren't inherently valuable to a user. I would back projects all day long on Kickstarter with someone elses money but I have never backed a project myself.
Think about how downvoting on StackOverflow works. It costs you karma or points to downvote somehting, it's not free.
I think I would probably use LaunchSky as a way to make sure people didn't think it was potentially the worst idea they've ever heard of but outside of that I couldn't place any real faith in the platform for big ideas. I would probably limit myself to posting ideas which I felt I could build in a few evenings.
It's actually a little inception-esque. You're pitching an idea for an app about ideas for apps.
I think it's essentially light-market fit testing but it actually kind of blew my mind that the site itself poses the same question it hopes to answer for others, "Would people use this?"
No, he didn't want to be acquired, and he didn't want to go to an aggressive acquisition negotiation meeting, since there would be no terms he would accept. He only went to the meeting because he thought it was a demo.
Could you make an impact (even if a very small one) on a large number of people over the course of a weekend with a pencil and paper?
I've never had a piece of art or drawing save work/time/money for me but we have apps that do this everywhere.
Art is an amazing creative outlet and I've seen some awe inspiring drawings/paintings but I've never seen one with a tangible benefit.
I think if you asked several highschool or even college students who painted Starry Night or Washington Crossing the Delaware you'd get a lot of blank stares. Ask the same kids if they know of or use Facebook; I'd bet more kids know about Facebook.
I'm not saying that everyone is cut out to be a programmer but I do support everyone trying it out. Zuckerberg didn't create Facebook with a pencil and paper.
Yes, you can have an impact - a very large impact on a very large number of people with just a pencil and paper. Martin Luther did it.
Of course, that's taking things to an extreme, but you get my point. And sure, it took him longer than a weekend, but I doubt most 'disruptive' works of programming were born in a single weekend.
(EDIT: I'm not sure why Luther's 95 Theses popped into my head above any other body of work. But it's pretty indisputable that it was awfully impactful, and were, largely, just pen and paper (or quill and parchment... whatever :)))
Could you make an impact (even if a very small one) on a large number of people over the course of a weekend with a pencil and paper?
Gandhi made a huge impact on a vast number of people and all he had was a white cloth and a pair of glasses! (albeit it took longer than a weekend)
Joking aside, if everyone learnt to programme then there would be no need for specific programmers. Yes, it's frustrating when people don't know the basics, but I have no idea what to do when it comes to plumbing. These are very distinct jobs. I take my car to a mechanic for the same reason. I do not need to know how the plumbing in my house works to take a shower, or how an engine works in order to drive my car. Facebook or Amazon do not require their users to understand how programming works.
If your code requires someone to understand the basics of programming then you have failed as programmer to understand your target audience. Granted you have apps that save you work/time/money, but your basic user should not need to understand what is going on under the hood.
My viewpoint is that I think everyone should learn a very very very basic level of programming and for two reasons:
1) Those who like it will take it further.....
2) Even writing a trivial program requires getting certain sorts of thought processes right. Once you can write trivial programs you may not be valuable as a programmer, but you will be empowered to interact with computers if you ever find yourself in your chosen work on a tangent where that's helpful.
