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

Show HN: I built a zero-cost, ad-free alternative to LinkedIn

sellff.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 190 posts

Re: Show HN: I built a zero-cost, ad-free alternative to LinkedIn

#181

Post by 5350-uiop-1130 »

4sellff wrote: post #24
5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #11

Novel idea but won't something like this just end up being manipulated or gamed in one way or another.

I believe the trading feature helps to prevent manipulation. The investments you make in others counts towards the TRU Score for you and the other person. So, if you make "bad" investments in others, it will only serve to reduce your TRU Score. Of course, some people might be willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others. But, that should be easy to identify. Example: If a high-reputation person vouches f…

Thanks for the clarification. It may be worth thinking about obfuscating the TRU score in some way or the algorithms that control it as way of deterring any kind of manipulations.

Re: Show HN: I built a zero-cost, ad-free alternative to LinkedIn

#182

Post by bwb »

4sellff wrote: post #144
bwb wrote: post #135

I signed up but never got a confirmation email, and login wont work.

Hello...thanks for your comment. We seem to be experiencing issues with new account registrations and email confirmations. We are working to resolve now. Thank you for your interest in the service and your patience. -Ron

Awesome thanks, just let me know as I'd like to take a look. Love the idea!

Re: Show HN: I built a zero-cost, ad-free alternative to LinkedIn

#184

Post by macspoofing »

4sellff wrote: post #119
macspoofing wrote: post #109

>I built a zero-cost, ad-free alternative to LinkedIn Zero-cost and ad-free FOR NOW you mean. At some point you're going to have make money and the only viable options are 1) charity/donations 2) subscription 3) ads and data selling. #2 means you're not 'zero-cost' and #3 means you're not 'ad-free'. So you're going to rely on donations?

With all due respect, there are additional options to choose from. We are still very early in this, but I will "take the bait" since monetization seems to be an issue that people care about. A percentage of revenue is I think a fair option. I am not referring to the previous comment about 30% [or even 10%]. I hate fees as much as the next person and taking a giant cut of your customers income is not the way to grow a…

>We are still very early in this, but I will "take the bait" since monetization seems to be an issue that people care about.

There's no 'bait'. I don't have issues with ad-supported or subscription-supported services. I do think you should set realistic expectations, namely, today you are 'zero-cost' and 'ad-free' because you're starting out and need to get users for your social network. This is how every social network started as well. At some point, that will change because you have bills to pay.

>A percentage of revenue is I think a fair option.

Can you elaborate on that?

>A question for you:

I actually have no issue with the linkedin model: Free/ad-supported tier, and subscription tiers for those who want extra functionality. I'm not sure about taking a cut of revenues. That would be a logistical nightmare unless you're also the payment processor.

Re: Show HN: I built a zero-cost, ad-free alternative to LinkedIn

#185

Post by tacitusarc »

dvtrn wrote: post #49
MattGaiser wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that is what you are in the workplace. And you admit this every time you switch jobs or ask for a raise.

No. I reject the premise that exchanging labor for compensation is the same as self-commidification parallel to having a simulacrum of "stocks" that are bought and sold based upon whims and sentiment like some kind of fungible, tradeable asset. 100% rejecting that. The former is a mutually beneficial exchange, not an ephemeral manifestation of trading chattel that masquerades as some indicator of competence or value…

Absolutely agree. Treating people like stocks completely ignores individual agency and decision making. A stock cannot choose to be traded, but I sure as hell can choose to quit.

Re: Show HN: I built a zero-cost, ad-free alternative to LinkedIn

#186

Post by macspoofing »

varispeed wrote: post #133
macspoofing wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I wish there was a service I could simply pay for using, enough so that the operator wouldn't have to use invasive advertising where I could connect with other people who would want my services or vice-versa. There are a lot of services that you can pay to use. The problem with social networks (which this is) is that though you are willing to pay, others are not, and social networks are worthless without the 'networ…

I don't mind being on a network without people who don't want to pay for it. Not sure why is that an issue?

>I don't mind being on a network without people who don't want to pay for it.

OK. Either this is a missed opportunity to satisfy a market need, or there is no market for that kind of social network.

Re: Show HN: I built a zero-cost, ad-free alternative to LinkedIn

#187

Post by unobatbayar »

4sellff wrote: post #166
unobatbayar wrote: post #146

What's the tech stack you've used? Do you think it's better to build an App first or a Website? or both?

Not entirely the right person to answer this question, but we went with a .Net solution using SQL Server and React. We decided on the website first that would work OK on mobile devices. Faster and less cost to get into the market. Thanks to HN "Who wants to be hired" I was able to connect with 3x amazing devs in Croatia who built the solution. I have learned so much from HN over the last couple of years. Lots of valu…

Thank you, I see. The site looks great!

Re: Show HN: I built a zero-cost, ad-free alternative to LinkedIn

#188

Post by 4sellff »

banana_giraffe wrote: post #156
4sellff wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As designed, there is no direct way to influence the TRU Score in any meaningful way. A person could theoretically make 100's of trades every day and post dozens of messages, reviews, etc. This would have some impact on the TRU Score, but nothing significant over a time period of less than 6 - 12 months. As is true in the real world, when making decisions about the people to work with, we all use a variety of inputs.…

> As designed, there is no direct way to influence the TRU Score in any meaningful way If I cannot influence my TRU Score, then it's not really a reflection of anything about me, is it? The screenshots I've seen of your site suggest you give this score the most prominent position on info cards about people. This suggests to me you are designing the site to let people use this information first and foremost in making…

Allow me to be more clear on my original response. When I used the word "influence" I should have instead stated "manipulate." I believe honesty and integrity is what people care about in a score or rating system.

So, there is no direct way for a member to "manipulate" the TRU Score:

- Your activities on the site contribute to your TRU Score

- The community reaction to your activities will contribute to your TRU Score

- If a member invests the time to develop their profile and is active on the site, those activties [if viewed positively by the community] will contribute to an increased value for the TRU Score

I believe this is a fair, appropriate and transparent way to derive a score. My belief is that our members will not only rely on the TRU Score in making decisions. Instead, they will also review other parts of the member profile. In the same way you might look at a Yelp or Amazon review.

Guessing that you do not make decisions based solely on the star ratings when buying a product or choosing a service. But that you might also read some of the reviews and look at images of the product/service. Thank you for taking the time to comment and share your thoughts.

Re: Show HN: I built a zero-cost, ad-free alternative to LinkedIn

#189

Post by 4sellff »

29athrowaway wrote: post #179
4sellff wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valid point and I understand the concern. However [at least in the USA] we are all scored in many different ways. This includes: credit scores, insurance scores, criminal scores, employer/employee scores, education scores, etc. Yes, these examples are private and only visible to certain people [unless hacked]. Whereas the SELLFF TRU Score is public and visible to everyone. We have been transparent about how the value…

Those scores almost without exception come from authoratative sources, not crowdsourcing. If you crowdsource reputation, people will be able to buy it.

Thank you for your comment. Would you prefer to be rated by an authoritative source using inputs that are closed and unknown? Or, would you rather have your peers provide a rating in an open and transparent manner?

[I think] Crowdsourced opinions are an excellent way to make informed decisions about products/services. A great example is using Amazon.com for competing products:

Product A: 5.0 star rating | 32 reviews Product B: 4.5 star rating | 5,264 reviews

Which product would you weigh more heavily when making a buying decision?

Keep in mind that SELLFF is positioned as a Professional Network. Any response or feedback will be relative to you, in a professional capacity. This might include the quality of the service you provide, your communication skills, did you finish the job on time, etc.

Also, any reputation you earn as a seller works in your benefit when you consult with others as a buyer. People want to work with other people who they have confidence in. This is true on Uber,Lyft and AirBnB, where both parties "rate" each other.

I think a digital reputation is a vital part of a healthy marketplace.

Re: Show HN: I built a zero-cost, ad-free alternative to LinkedIn

#190

Post by 29athrowaway »

4sellff wrote: post #189
29athrowaway wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those scores almost without exception come from authoratative sources, not crowdsourcing. If you crowdsource reputation, people will be able to buy it.

Thank you for your comment. Would you prefer to be rated by an authoritative source using inputs that are closed and unknown? Or, would you rather have your peers provide a rating in an open and transparent manner? [I think] Crowdsourced opinions are an excellent way to make informed decisions about products/services. A great example is using Amazon.com for competing products: Product A: 5.0 star rating | 32 reviews…

People buy followers on Twitter. They buy likes on Instagram. They buy Amazon reviews, Google Play reviews, etc.

If your reputation system is taken seriously, people will buy their way into it.

Post reply on HN