just to provide even more context. In our previous system, you entered your email to be in our beta queue. You could enter 3 of your friends' emails to move up the queue. Pretty standard stuff. We didn't think much of it.
In our last HN post, a reader named zem had commented that they didn't like the 3-invite system. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3194012 (click parent to see the original post). As i mentioned earlier, we saw it as pretty standard practice and hadn't given it an extra thought when we implemented it, but the comment sparked the question, how could we make beta invites more engaging when just about every other company out there is doing the same thing.
haha good job stanton. obfuscate probably would have added 30 seconds to the time it would take to hack it. If we really wanted to make it more robust, we would have added a validation to the score, a validation ensuring that time had passed between duck clicks, (looks like you didnt click ducks at all in your case), a minimal time to beat the game, a validation that ensures you didn't exceed the maximum possible score, and whatever other means to make it more annoying to hack, but even then... and in the end, we're not a gaming company and this was just a fun lil exercise we threw together to test a concept. Good job though haha, we knew if we posted in tech, this would probably happen :)
Hey Bobby, so made the share on facebook checkbox more visible. Also, clicking out of the modal now automatically unchecks that box. The only time it will share now is if you click "Done", with the checkbox checked, in which case, it should be very clear that you've seen the checkbox and know what you're doing.
Deployed and tested. That should eliminate any unwanted surprises, so feel free to mark all the things you've done!
Hey bomatson.There actually is a checkbox right under the done button to not post on FB. I think a lot of times, people just click out without looking at the modal. The whole doning and wanting experience is definitely something we're looking at. Of course we want people to share on FB but at the same time, we don't want to give anyone an unpleasant surprise.
I'll let you know what we come up with for that one. Thanks for the feedback.
I think you've highlighted one of the difficulties in this space. Nowadays, a lot of people expect any new ecommerce site to be some sort of deals site. It has become the default and you actually have to do work to show that you're not a deals site.
You mention a "big idea" and use the startup "team" rhetoric, but that's all par for the course. Think about all the signals you're giving off. Others have mentioned here already what the NDA signals. Contract-based pricing and vague equity incentives feels a lot like you're looking to outsource development of a huge project for too little return despite the "team" rhetoric, even if that's not your intention.
Options:
1. if you're looking for "your guy", (s)he needs to REALLY be part of the team. Don't tip-toe around it with vague incentives, contract-based pricing and NDAs. These things signal inconfidence.
2. Become "your guy". Or at least try. Shw that you're hustling and that this thing will get made with or without "your guy".
Humj thanks for your insight. You should understand my business partner and I are new to this. We have been reading posts for HN for a few months now trying to feel out the community. Although it seems my statement seems vague, dont mistake it for not being confident. Its purely two MBA's taking a leap. If we had development skills this wouldnt be a problem then would it? Part of the reason for finding "my guy" and your correct could be a woman too, is that we want to partner with a developer. I think you've mistaken my post. When I post an actual offer I will take this advice and not tip-toe. An NDA to us more like a pre-nup. Think of this way, we dont think anything is gonna happen but its there just incase? How can you argue against that as a developer? Im trying to learn here which is why I posted this so I value your opinion.
I'm aware these may not be your intentions, as I stated in my post. I'm saying, be sure to step outside and think honestly about how it comes across to someone who isn't familiar with your or your business.
Ya, personally I dont feel good about the NDA either. I can understand how it comes off but I think developers should also put themselves in our shoes. I only send it when its someone Im dealing with online or someone that I dont have a personal connection with. I have pitched to a few developers in Chicago based off personal connections because there is no need to worry. Unfortunately it seems as HN is against this but I still have not heard a good enough argument to prove me otherwise. Its unfortunate that developers are judgmental when asked to sign an NDA, however I can see how it can come across. Im def thinking outside the box but at the same time, taking precautionary measures to ensure sustaining our intangible value.
A few people here mentioned that their online giveaways didn't convert well. You may think, "who wouldn't try out my cool new app for a chance to win an ipad right?" But consider how this may read to your potential new users, "So they want me to enter my information into an unknown service, without any concrete return? and wait, is this one of those... try out any one of these services for a free ipad scams?"
remember that your potential new users have no idea who you are, and people are still generally suspicious of new things on the internet, and rightfully so.
In our last HN post, a reader named zem had commented that they didn't like the 3-invite system. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3194012 (click parent to see the original post). As i mentioned earlier, we saw it as pretty standard practice and hadn't given it an extra thought when we implemented it, but the comment sparked the question, how could we make beta invites more engaging when just about every other company out there is doing the same thing.