This thread has so much optimism considering what chatroulette is/was/became.
Show HN: I made a chat roulette for remote workers
41–50 of 66 posts
Re: Show HN: I made a chat roulette for remote workers
#42A few thoughts: 1. This is a really neat idea. I love the creativity. 2. But for $5 you're not giving me a whole lot more than what I can get for myself on Reddit, HN, Social Media. What do I get exactly that I can't get by just asking on social media? 3. Call me wrong, I'm not actually sure how I feel on this. But it kind of slightly maybe smells like profiteering. Do you really need $5 per person? Does the price re…
Re: Show HN: I made a chat roulette for remote workers
#43Oh man, we did this (MVP style) about 6 years ago, called it Collabo. Tested it with a Facebook group, then we manually connected random people together and scheduled them video chats. We called it "the water cooler for solopreneurs." Really just a fun experiment more than a business. Happy to share whatever learnings I can dig up. Edit: Just found the homepage mock. "A first-of-its-kind virtual water cooler for free…
Re: Show HN: I made a chat roulette for remote workers
#44Our team ended up creating a Discord voice channel that we can each chime in on as needed. It gives us a "ambient chat" as one of my colleges put it and helps simulate working in the same environment.
Re: Show HN: I made a chat roulette for remote workers
#45It's not about meeting new people, in fact, socializing is discouraged, but it is about real people helping each other by just being there.
Re: Show HN: I made a chat roulette for remote workers
#46A few thoughts: 1. This is a really neat idea. I love the creativity. 2. But for $5 you're not giving me a whole lot more than what I can get for myself on Reddit, HN, Social Media. What do I get exactly that I can't get by just asking on social media? 3. Call me wrong, I'm not actually sure how I feel on this. But it kind of slightly maybe smells like profiteering. Do you really need $5 per person? Does the price re…
Re: Show HN: I made a chat roulette for remote workers
#47A few thoughts: 1. This is a really neat idea. I love the creativity. 2. But for $5 you're not giving me a whole lot more than what I can get for myself on Reddit, HN, Social Media. What do I get exactly that I can't get by just asking on social media? 3. Call me wrong, I'm not actually sure how I feel on this. But it kind of slightly maybe smells like profiteering. Do you really need $5 per person? Does the price re…
Uh yeah, especially on the 4. Tineye shows they're stock photos, which seems incredibly shady because you know the quotes are totally fabricated as well. This seems very opportunistic, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but opportunism + shadiness is a bad look.
Re: Show HN: I made a chat roulette for remote workers
#48Five dollars? Yuck. If it’s a barrier to entry against creeps, it’s got to be higher. Maybe a deposit of some kind? Also - since you made the bizarre choice to directly reference it below the “50% off till Monday” tag - it’s coronavirus or COVID-19, not corona virus.
If they just put this sentence on their homepage the reaction on this thread would be totally different.
Re: Show HN: I made a chat roulette for remote workers
#49Oh man, we did this (MVP style) about 6 years ago, called it Collabo. Tested it with a Facebook group, then we manually connected random people together and scheduled them video chats. We called it "the water cooler for solopreneurs." Really just a fun experiment more than a business. Happy to share whatever learnings I can dig up. Edit: Just found the homepage mock. "A first-of-its-kind virtual water cooler for free…
> scheduled them video chats
Does a service exist where you can programmatically schedule a video-chat/meeting for two parties?
Re: Show HN: I made a chat roulette for remote workers
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh yeah, especially on the 4. Tineye shows they're stock photos, which seems incredibly shady because you know the quotes are totally fabricated as well. This seems very opportunistic, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but opportunism + shadiness is a bad look.
They're generic usage scenarios and clearly intended as such. I can see how someone might find this off-putting or unappealing but calling it 'shady' is a bit overwrought. There's no intent to deceive here.
Based on what? I assumed they were real users because there was no indication otherwise. This is why we have words like "actor portrayal" displayed at the bottom of our screens when a person makes a claim about using a product and it's actually just a person reading a script.