After reading the prior comments, at this point I would have to agree with this idea's detractors. Given the current format (i.e. reviews/comments are listed together), how would RIA determine which reviews are generating the revenue and which are not? Also (and as prior comment noted) assuming that hurdle is overcome, this appears to be an additional invitation to spammers and those using the site in bad faith. Perhaps the devil is in the details, but I can't say this is workable. (As a caveat, I don't even use the current revenue program, so there's a chance that is affecting my opinion.)

I know it's not all about the money on RIA, but I disagree with you all on this one. I strongly believe that if someone writes a quality review that leads to some revenue being earned, the author of that review should share in that revenue.

Money improves nothing. . .except your chances of getting laid in Vegas. . .

I dunno if I want to see this can of worms opened or not.

Not that it wouldn't be cool to earn money for doing what I'm already doing anyway, and many things I've been skeptical of before turned out relatively alright, but I'm still reluctant to throw any support behind this one.

I think this one will rest on how payment is determined for the review. Quantity? Quality?

Anyone can write "it sux" 100 times for reviews, but not put in the effort of one good, "useful" review.

Those who put more time into a "quality" review might feel irked that some crappy review is "worth" the same amount. Then you've got to worry about what constitutes a "quality" review.

If it's done, hopefully it's done in a way that can somehow address all that.