I think people most of us are curious to see the detailed results but I don't think more than a few people would be willing to shell out any $. Perhaps consider opening up the detailed results for this contest as a one-time-thing? I think that the interest+publicity you will receive (in addition to already being #1 on HN) would greatly out-weigh the few hundred bucks that you might get from a handful of people who'd seriously be willing to pay to see these results.
When a post is on top of HN, I don't think we're used to seeing the meat of the content stuck behind a quasi-paywall.
EDIT: It looks like you've posted the results publicly now, nice.
Love the idea; we'll definitely give it some thought, especially how the experts can profit from these fees well after they post the flight option.
Aside: we really didn't expect this post to get to the top of HN. Our intern was running around the apartment saying, "I told you we should have planned better."
If it's only 10 cm taller, that sounds like within the margin of error of where you measure. Not that I have any idea what the standard "building height" measurement entails.
We can measure the distance to the moon accurately enough to determine it is getting 3.8 cm furhter from the earth each year, I'm pretty sure 10cm is well outside the margin of error for measurements of something as simple as a building.
Once you know what to measure, that is true. However, in 'tallest of the world' attempts, there typically is quite a bit of uncertainty about where spires (included in height measurement) end and antennae (not part of the building) begin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_s...).
The point of these "X for Y" little slogans is to elucidate what the site does by analogy. When I think Hipmunk, I think flight scheduling. There is no equivalent for cars, and this is not a car scheduling anything. Thus the "Hipmunk for Cars" line just left me confused... it failed at its purpose and shouldn't be used as it's not a clear analogy.
It's a shame that some of the selections don't seem to be mapped to the underlying data in a trustworthy way. If I do a filter on "convertibles" I get a lot of non-convertibles, which creates this tension of "did the last filter I did remove too many things that I would want to see".
If you are selecting a body style from the homepage, its possible that you are de-selecting convertibles and instead searching for everything else (since all styles are depressed by default). You are the third person to mention this, so I definitely think we have a UI issue here. We will definitely figure out a better way to present the options.
I've done three searches now and have noticed that when I click "see listing" most of the links are invalid. Filtering to 100 miles in distance still returns results that are significantly more than 100 miles away (results from IL when using a CA zip code).
It's interesting for a new site but not that useful for searching for vehicles yet as it probably needs more filters. For example, searching for a Ford F-150 returns a lot of results but someone buying an F-150 is probably going to have a specific subset in mind. Getting a ton of two wheel drive, standard cab with bench seat models when you want four wheel drive, king cab with bucket seats is going to be very frustrating.
Yup, and sometimes particular option are the biggest part of the deal. I'm currently looking for cars that can sear 6+ passengers. Usually I see this as "third row seat". Don't seem to have that option.
Also, the min-max sliders are a bit tricky on an iPhone.
The way you suppress listings that are "worse" than the one displayed is kind of weird to figure out, and sometimes really deceptive when the "best" deal is a $900 parts car that is masking a few $5K daily drivers.
I'd be hesitant to start using any tool that has a very small limit for the number of free contacts (10 per month), considering you give absolutely no insight onto what a paid plan might cost (you simply list the price as "???"). If it is going to cost $50/month for 100 contacts, I'm not even going to bother with testing the free version.
I'd also be hesitant without an explanation of what happens to e-mails once the limit is reached. If I wind up unexpectedly on Hacker News and 200 people try to contact me, do I lose 150 of them?
Hi kapkapkap, the paid plans would be a few dollars a month for greater volumes. I'm not sure what the cost will be yet because I don't know my costs before I get more usage, but it won't be expensive.
Thanks for the screenshots. I have to say, both before and after look pretty horrendous.
The "before" screenshot is plagued with Fitt's Law and Hick's Law violations. The "after" fixes some problems, but there are still far too many items for a driver to quickly acquire their target, and the opportunity for mode errors are off the charts.
The amount of attention required to use this system while driving is a genuine danger to others on the road.
so I opened these two images in two tabs, and now looking at them I honestly don't know which is the "improved" one. The black/red one looks a lot less messy, but still kinda like a first draft from a high school student. the other one's just plain horrible though, so I'll guess the black/red one
>but I figure the majority of content on YouTube is genuinely owned by the people who post it, while I very much doubt this is the case on Pinterest.
That assumption seems fairly inaccurate, see this quote:
"Remarkably, more than one-third of the two billion views of YouTube videos with ads each week are ... uploaded without the copyright owner’s permission but left up by the owner’s choice." [1]
Didn't read the article, but as far as I can see that doesn't disprove his assumption.
The NYT quote is talking just about the videos with ads, and then only discussing them in terms of views (not in terms of percentages of actual content uploaded, which is something like 24+ hours of content every minute).
When a post is on top of HN, I don't think we're used to seeing the meat of the content stuck behind a quasi-paywall.
EDIT: It looks like you've posted the results publicly now, nice.