Live data from Hacker News

We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism

listnerd.com

11–20 of 138 posts

Re: We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism

#11
After having a look and reading your interview with marketingstartups[1], it is quite an interesting idea.

It strikes me as an evolved incarnation of Buzzfeed[2] in that the entirety of its content is user-generated, whereas this wasn't the case with Buzzfeed until recently, and even now, I believe user submissions are subject to moderation.

I don't think you should give up yet. I wouldn't. I would start by simplifying the design (sure, it looks nice, but it feels over-ornamented), defining stricter guidelines for posting (e.g. encourage "Top/Best X" type posts in lieu of general free-form lists, and figure out other ways to start driving traffic to it.

I wish you guys the very best and again, don't give up yet.

PS: Please get in touch if you'd like to talk more.

[1] http://marketingstartups.com/2012/12/18/interview-with-listn... [2] http://buzzfeed.com

Re: We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism

#12
The content and audience are I suspect far more important than what your site does at this stage, and you should narrow the scope on both of those.

You have what looks like a serviceable site to produce lists (not really a complex challenge). I'm not sure why you think your site sucks? I'm sure you'll get some feedback on styling, content etc (it's not really to my taste, but hey, it's not terrible either), but if you are seeing slow growth, it's probably not because your site tech/design sucks, it's because no-one really deeply wants to make lists in the first place. The idea and marketing is the problem, not the execution.

So, who is the site for, what's the target market/demographic? Who are they making the lists for?

Perhaps instead of targeting everyone, you should narrow your focus, and start targeting a particular market. This sort of site needs either a very specific focus to which the list making and content are tailored - say shopping lists, or it needs a specific demographic.

If you want to make this a social site, perhaps target a demographic like Norwegian teens OR mums if you have experience there, but don't target the entire world from the start.

If you want to make money from shopping, maybe tailor this to just best of lists of products for particular niches and invest in content?

As it is I don't see how lists about These 7 Things Will Make Any Man Want to Fight for You and Best Tracks in Mario Kart 8 are going to keep anyone on your site. The content just isn't compelling at all (there are hundreds of existing content farms churning out stuff like this like buzzfeed etc) and it is far too scattershot.

PS Install some caching software prior to posting on HN :)

Re: We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism

#15
I like the idea but my first impression is that the front page is a tad overwhelming. I didn't actually read the top green pane until after looking at the images, which may say something about how users look at the content.

Perhaps interestingly, my first click was to Browse Top Lists, only to find that Porn Actresses, Page 3 Models and Hentai artists all feature in the top 5 and 4/9 trending lists have the same pink handbag image, even for the Best Web Apps list. You need an adult category which you can hide the NSFW lists in and then not display this to logged out users. As already noted, I think the content is your biggest problem; I may not be your target audience but regardless there's little there to be encouraged to comment on or find inspiration from for new lists.

Re: We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism

#16
It lacks the touch of a good designer. Everything seems slightly off... from colors, to fonts, to text placements, to 20 other small touches. It all adds up to an amateurish feel. Some examples:

1. The colors. Ugh.

2. The formatting of the content boxes should be more consistent. All pictures should go to the edge and have the same height. Logos should have padding, not stretch to the edge (e.g. YouTube). Even once this is fixed, the different palettes in the different pictures are what's contributing to the clutter. Maybe make all the pictures b&w... not sure. Do you need the chrome for these? Boxes with shading and extra lines is a bit dated. Check out digg.com for a better example of this style. Generally this is the biggest issue.

3. The "Popular Lists" graphic should be half/half on the area above/below. Right now, just a few pixels lay on the green area. Plus the white is too close to the off-white of the section below. If not for the shadow, I probably wouldn't be able to tell you were going for.

4. Something looks odd about the font in Chrome. Certain letters seem bold, or somehow "stretched" a few pixels too tall. (e.g. The "E" from E3, the "B" from Best Viral Videos)

5. The anti-aliasing is inconsistent. Text isn't being anti-aliased at all. The logo is anti-aliasing unnecessarily (at the top/bottom of squared letters). The pictures seem to be low-quality JPEGs which contributes to this issue.

Assuming all the formatting is done via css a good designer should be able to fix most of this in a few days.

Re: We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism

#18
post #10
post #2

Backstory: We run a media company and we've put more than $200k of our own savings into Listnerd - not counting the thousands of work hours we've also invested. It's a list blogging platform / social network centered around top lists. We're growing extremely slow, so after 1.5 years in the grind, we've come to the conclusion that our site sucks. Please help us out by destroying us with your criticism.

What did you spend $200K on? Just the design? It seems like you have technical people on your team; so if you are not counting your time why is the number so high? Even with design and team of two-three engineers consulting for a month or two that figure is extremely high.

Would also love to know where the money went specifically. Seems insane (also do you need another website built for 200k?)

Re: We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism

#19

I rather like it but how the heck did you manage to spend $200K on it? Would you mind opening up about exactly how the money was spent?

Sure :) We're basicly two founders that have done most of the design and project management of the site. In addition, we've outsourced some design and all of the programming to Ukraine, including the mobile version. The outsourced development itself runs into the 100k's over the stretch of 1.5 years, and in addition, we've done some marketing (40-50k) and had some administrative costs (lawyers, offices, etc.). I don't have an exact sum, but it's anywhere from 190-220k.

Re: We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism

#20
post #9

How were you expecting to make money?

The business model is divided in two:

1. affiliate revenue from product sales, tracked via Viglinks.com (usually 6% commision off one sale; and remember, our lists are basicly shopping guides - or well, they should be)

2. straight up advertising, Google Adsense to begin, then setting up our own sales team (if we succeed, that is)...

Post reply on HN