Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Ridiculously cheap bulk geocoding

geocod.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 104 posts

Re: Show HN: Ridiculously cheap bulk geocoding

#91

Post by mjwhansen »

rubyn00bie wrote: post #87

Just for those curious, it's not that cheap actually compared to Google's enterprise level Geocoding. Nor, I'm guessing, is it able to geocode internationally. In which case you might as well use Mapquest, as it's completely free. Currently, the company I work for uses Google for geocoding and we have 1.1mil a day which ends up costing around $5k (22%) per year more than these folks... but! It includes international…

Other founder of Geocodio here -- thanks for your feedback! You bring up a lot of good points.

Building off of what's above, Geocodio is intended to be accessible to developers who don't have $10k to drop on geocodes. We found that this is a big need in the community (and for ourselves for our other projects). All of the other non-major-mapping geocoding services we found, including CSV upload instead of API, were more expensive than $0.001/each (oftentimes much more -- $0.25+)

Also, we don't have limitations to how you use the data. No requirements that you use a specific brand of map with it, no attribution requirements, etc.

We priced it at this point, with a free tier, so that people can give it a try first. No, our data isn't quite as good as Google's -- we get about 90% of addresses within 1 mile, and most within a tenth of a mile -- and we want people to be able to play around with the service and get to know it before they have to give credit card info.

With that said, we definitely plan to continue improving the product and add international support.

PS. We are HUGE fans of Mapbox, so we're pretty excited that you listed that as a potential use case :)

Re: Show HN: Ridiculously cheap bulk geocoding

#92

Post by mjwhansen »

appleflaxen wrote: post #59

Your pricing page is not as clear as it could be. When people read "$0.001 each" they sometimes understand it to be one thousandth of a cent rather than one thousandth of a dollar . Even though you are completely correct/accurate, people find it confusing (1). Wouldn't it be clearer to say "1 cent fore every ten uses" (or "10 calls for a cent" or "a tenth of a penny per call")? Admittedly, your audience is semi-techn…

Other founder here -- sorry about that! We can definitely make it clearer, you're right.

Re: Show HN: Ridiculously cheap bulk geocoding

#93

Post by thecodemonkey »

davidcelis wrote: post #89

Cool project. Like others have said, not particularly convinced that it's cheaper than Google's enterprise geocoding, but I'm more than glad to see the competition. I wrote you guys a Ruby client: https://github.com/davidcelis/geocodio The code's maybe a bit rough, but it's worked in my limited usage. Maybe you can take it for a test run before I push version 1.0.0 to RubyGems?

Thanks! This looks great! Would you mind if we possibly mentioned this in our documentation?

As for the pricing, we are indeed much cheaper than Google's geocoding offerings (given the nature of our product). If you are looking to do a high amount of geocoding requests, just contact us[1] and we'll work out a pricing model for you.

[1] hello@geocod.io

Re: Show HN: Ridiculously cheap bulk geocoding

#94

Post by davidcelis »

thecodemonkey wrote: post #93
davidcelis wrote: post #89

Cool project. Like others have said, not particularly convinced that it's cheaper than Google's enterprise geocoding, but I'm more than glad to see the competition. I wrote you guys a Ruby client: https://github.com/davidcelis/geocodio The code's maybe a bit rough, but it's worked in my limited usage. Maybe you can take it for a test run before I push version 1.0.0 to RubyGems?

Thanks! This looks great! Would you mind if we possibly mentioned this in our documentation? As for the pricing, we are indeed much cheaper than Google's geocoding offerings (given the nature of our product). If you are looking to do a high amount of geocoding requests, just contact us[1] and we'll work out a pricing model for you. [1] hello@geocod.io

Definitely feel free to mention it in the docs! Thanks again for an awesome new alternative.

Version 1.0.0 is on RubyGems now, by the way!

Re: Show HN: Ridiculously cheap bulk geocoding

#96

Post by dougmccune »

stfp wrote: post #55

Congrats on the product! Just a couple website level things: - http://geocod.io/contact/ says DC but shows me a map centered somewhere south of Topeka. - Random $0.02 suggestion: stop using "ridiculous".

fun fact: the "geographic center" of the US is in Kansas. Often if something geocodes to only "USA" then it gets placed there.

Re: Show HN: Ridiculously cheap bulk geocoding

#97

Post by ksrm »

mimiflynn wrote: post #79
stfp wrote: post #55

Congrats on the product! Just a couple website level things: - http://geocod.io/contact/ says DC but shows me a map centered somewhere south of Topeka. - Random $0.02 suggestion: stop using "ridiculous".

I'm getting a map centered in Brooklyn. I'm in Midtown Manhattan... so, maybe its trying to find our location? Are you close to Topeka?

mkessy, you are hellbanned.

Re: Show HN: Ridiculously cheap bulk geocoding

#98

Post by abus »

appleflaxen wrote: post #59

Your pricing page is not as clear as it could be. When people read "$0.001 each" they sometimes understand it to be one thousandth of a cent rather than one thousandth of a dollar . Even though you are completely correct/accurate, people find it confusing (1). Wouldn't it be clearer to say "1 cent fore every ten uses" (or "10 calls for a cent" or "a tenth of a penny per call")? Admittedly, your audience is semi-techn…

That would only be an issue if they wrote 0.001c. $0.001 is very clear.

Re: Show HN: Ridiculously cheap bulk geocoding

#99

Post by mjwhansen »

cmaggard wrote: post #69
appleflaxen wrote: post #59

Your pricing page is not as clear as it could be. When people read "$0.001 each" they sometimes understand it to be one thousandth of a cent rather than one thousandth of a dollar . Even though you are completely correct/accurate, people find it confusing (1). Wouldn't it be clearer to say "1 cent fore every ten uses" (or "10 calls for a cent" or "a tenth of a penny per call")? Admittedly, your audience is semi-techn…

The part I was unclear about, actually, is whether or not one is charged for the first 2500 if one were to hit that threshold.

The first 2,500 are always free. So 2,501 would be $0.001. I'll make that clearer on the site -- thanks!
Post reply on HN