Totally fine with the feedback. Thanks for checking us out! To address your point though, we've actually found that we have a pretty awesome mix of users that consists of both early adopters and more "normal" people. For example, my dad loves movies and gadgets but never reads any tech blogs or hears about this stuff normally. He likes using our site because he can hear about things he is interested in but normally never wouldn't have been exposed to. But again, thanks for the feedback; user acquisition is obviously always an issue.
It seems a little weird that someone who loves movies doesn't hear about them through any other sources. While I wanted to sign up for some of the movies, I knew I'd see ads for them on TV, or at bus stops when they launched. I've literally never missed the launch of something that I cared a lot about, because by definition I'd be the kind of person they'd be trying to reach. But the proof is in the data - if you're getting active users, then that's all that matters. Congrats :)
That was not the point at all. Criticism is totally fine and often valid, and it certainly aids in improvement. The point I was trying to make is that people are quick to criticize, but slow to compliment. We share our honest opinions when they're negative but not nearly as often when we have something positive to say.
I'm always open to criticism and am willing to improve. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough in the post.
I shouldn't have said you can't improve without criticism. What I meant to say is you can't improve without _feedback_. That feedback might be positive and/or negative.
People are quick to criticise and slow to compliment on HN. But ask yourself why.
Is it really so surprising?
Here are some of my observations. These could be wrong.
1. Computers have always been difficult and at times frustrating to use. I recall a story of someone throwing a PDP-10 out of a window at Berkeley, immediately after successfully porting some code to it (a wonderful achievement but incredibly frustrating- this was before C and portability). If you are spending your time working with computers, you are going to build up some frustration. It just goes with the territory. That will eventually have to be vented. (Exhibit A: Slashdot.org)
2. The web as a medium of business is full of scammers and criminals. It's also full of garbage "news" and other faux "content" trying to draw traffic, internet VC looking to take advantage of young programmers and naive investors, and "companies" formed of morally-challenged people who aim to make money by selling people's personal information or access to people's own content as a "business". There is a lot to make people jaded if you follow business on the web.
3. Computers do have a positive aspect. When they work well, it's amazing. Like magic. Computers are addictive. People enjoy them. When you write programs it can you give you a feeling of great satisfaction. ... However... the way we use computers, e.g., our personal preferences, often differ widely. So If you start singing the praises of something computer-related to other users reading the web, they may not all agree. In fact, the idea of the "fanboy", e.g. one who loves some absolutely terrible and stupid piece of software or hardware, can be even more disturbing than people who are constantly making negative comments about things which might actually not be all that bad.
4. HN if the estimates are accurate is _primarily_ an audience of 18-24 males who are are likely to be social outcasts. Would you really expect them to be overflowing with positive energy? In my experience, negative comments get upvoted. The most upvotes I ever received have been from negative comments. Who would upvote negativity? (I should really not even post negative things. I know better) So who the heck would upvote negativity? 18-24 males who can't get laid. Just a guess.
The only downside I could see to this would be people freaking out because it would seem like Facebook is "tracking" them on their phones all the time. But I think it would be super useful if you did ever have your phone stolen.
That's a really interesting point. So maybe we're likely to comment on something positive that far exceeds the normal experience, but not say anything where "good" is already expected. I'd never thought of it like that.
In my job, my boss expects everything to be fantstic, for him 'good' simply won't do and he tells me so every day, but occasionally you have to push something which is merely 'good'.
It can be a downer, but when I do 'fantastic' I know I've deserved the praise which is a massive moral boost.
Agree 100% with the college entrepreneurship club comment. The connections I made with entrepreneurial-minded, passionate people while still in school have been hugely beneficial.
Great article. I think most developers would jump at the chance to be more involved in "the process"; that is, working hand-in-hand with designers and not just being given some set of specs to whip up. The more mistakes you make, the more you learn. Plus, getting products or features into the hands of users gives you more valuable feedback than any amount of meeting-room discussion ever could.
I feel like the biggest danger with a system like this is that you might lose focus or passion while you're in between waves. Even if you're passionate about something while you're working on it, it seems like it would be very easy to become complacent working at your "in-between" job and difficult to get back working on your idea.
I think the very last point is one of the most important. The ability to drive users who are bored with the current game towards other, similarly addictive games is huge. The more games you can get one user to sink time into, the more money you can make.
