I think that wargaming idea is a good one, also the factor of 10. Not much to say, but that it is good food for thought. I do think that experimentation is a legitimate approach.

2) Profit model.

I like the marketplace. It could be done right. We do have some ideas baking that concern the user and revenue based on their page. The fact that your submissions are only where they are wanted does give some freedom, -if it scales, of course. Everything is contingent on that.

3) Granularity: I agree with you about symptoms. I think that messing with things, however, is a good way to see how they work.

Once again, I agree. A beta Hubski, or a group of users that want to try new functions. There’s nothing wrong with testing things out in the open. It’s not like we are selling baby car seats, after all. One trick is dealing with disagreements regarding what works better. But as a user, I’d appreciate seeing some sausage getting made. It always makes for interesting conversation.

4) Moderation - this is something you should think about more. It's not a problem you have now, but it is likely to be a problem you have in the future.

No doubt. It’s on my mind. Sleep will be lost. :)

5) Tags - Current Hubski tags are problematic because there's no taxonomy for them.

Well, if I could call tags something else, I might. Consider that they aren’t for categorization. I don’t have much faith in tagging to be honest, and I am not sold on the idea that a robust tagging system could be implemented without consequences. To be honest, the reason they exist has more to do with adding a degree of freedom than with accomplishing what their name suggests. Some time I’ll write something long-winded about my thinking on this. I might be completely wrong about them, however.

But, we are soon to go see Beckett’s Endgame!