4 ms·

This is really interesting. I'm planning my own limited invite-only beta rollout. However, this isn't the first time I heard it's a time-waster. Does anyone el

by vbtemp 14y ago

This is really interesting. I'm planning my own limited invite-only beta rollout. However, this isn't the first time I heard it's a time-waster. Does anyone else have opinions on this?

foxhop 14y ago
> 1. Invite-only access. I did not have invite-only access but I did promise beta access on https://linkpeek.com https://linkpeek.com I spent a bunch of engineering time writing beta only code. Offering beta did give me some extra exposure and a pretty large list of email addresses. I think a "tell me when you are ready" textarea might have been more worthwhile and would have better turn over. The programming logic to support beta (free) users adds to the complexity of the website's codebase. In short, for me it seems like a time-waster. I didn't need testers after all, my software and service was pretty solid.
mattmanser 14y ago
Do you really think you're going to be overwhelmed with sign ups? Simple beta: Add 'we're in beta' to your sign up page. Done. Invite-only: don't link the signup page to the rest of the site. Add it to the ignore in robots. Done. Anyone who finds it, well they just wanted it enough. Too many sign ups? Take the page away. Get rid of the template page, whatever. It takes about 10 secs to kill a page in most languages without a redeploy. Writing lots of extra code? Sucker. Don't over-engineer.
- vbtemp 14y ago
  The only thing is that this is not a free service, so I want just a couple users to flesh things out and get some new opinions, before releasing something that flops and gets a bad rap.
  - mattmanser 14y ago
    How are people going to magically discover said service? Or the signup page? You seriously don't have to worry. And if your service is so amazing and wonderful that people are frantically sharing your signup then you have a very good problem to deal with. Even then you can shut it down in an instant and even (shock, horror) email the people who you don't know and tell them you're really sorry but you're disabling their account because it's a private beta. And you'll let them know as soon as it's live. And they can get immediate access then. Because if you're sending out invites you know who you sent them out to right? As for it being a paid service, make it clear on the signup page it's free now but you'll be charging for it as soon as you're out of beta. No-one;s going to complain. Give a rough price if you feel like it, but make it clear it's rough. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.
  - ismarc 14y ago
    Make a signup page to be part of the beta, include the disclaimer that it's free during the beta but once the service is publicly available it will be charged for and the fees are waived during the beta in exchange for bug reports, possible issues/downtime, etc. Then, whenever someone signs up, just automatically send them an invite. You don't limit the people who want to use it in the beta and can provide valuable feedback and you set expectations appropriately for leaving free status and to the state of the application. And if you think that you may get a bad rap for being in "beta" and it not being as good as Google's beta, just call it "alpha" instead.
pygorex 14y ago
> This is really interesting. I'm planning my own limited invite-only beta rollout. However, this isn't the first time I heard it's a time-waster. Does anyone else have opinions on this? Yes. Don't do it. One of the biggest problems you're going to have at the get-go is finding people who actually give a shit about your product/service. Adopting an invite-only system attaches a huge negative filter to this problem: you are making it more difficult for prospective users to discover and use the product. There's one very important caveat to this: If you are relatively well-known and already have a large number of people following your blog, twitter or other web presence a invite-only system can make sense. Google can do invite-only because they can command millions of eyeballs through a simple press release. You are probably not Google. When you are a somebody an invite-only system feels like an exclusive club that can create buzz & desire. When you are a nobody an invite-only system feels arbitrary and frustrating. You are probably a nobody.

by vbtemp 14y ago

This is really interesting. I'm planning my own limited invite-only beta rollout. However, this isn't the first time I heard it's a time-waster. Does anyone else have opinions on this?

foxhop 14y ago

> 1. Invite-only access. I did not have invite-only access but I did promise beta access on https://linkpeek.com https://linkpeek.com I spent a bunch of engineering time writing beta only code. Offering beta did give me some extra exposure and a pretty large list of email addresses. I think a "tell me when you are ready" textarea might have been more worthwhile and would have better turn over. The programming logic to support beta (free) users adds to the complexity of the website's codebase. In short, for me it seems like a time-waster. I didn't need testers after all, my software and service was pretty solid.

mattmanser 14y ago

Do you really think you're going to be overwhelmed with sign ups? Simple beta: Add 'we're in beta' to your sign up page. Done. Invite-only: don't link the signup page to the rest of the site. Add it to the ignore in robots. Done. Anyone who finds it, well they just wanted it enough. Too many sign ups? Take the page away. Get rid of the template page, whatever. It takes about 10 secs to kill a page in most languages without a redeploy. Writing lots of extra code? Sucker. Don't over-engineer.

vbtemp 14y ago
The only thing is that this is not a free service, so I want just a couple users to flesh things out and get some new opinions, before releasing something that flops and gets a bad rap.
- mattmanser 14y ago
  How are people going to magically discover said service? Or the signup page? You seriously don't have to worry. And if your service is so amazing and wonderful that people are frantically sharing your signup then you have a very good problem to deal with. Even then you can shut it down in an instant and even (shock, horror) email the people who you don't know and tell them you're really sorry but you're disabling their account because it's a private beta. And you'll let them know as soon as it's live. And they can get immediate access then. Because if you're sending out invites you know who you sent them out to right? As for it being a paid service, make it clear on the signup page it's free now but you'll be charging for it as soon as you're out of beta. No-one;s going to complain. Give a rough price if you feel like it, but make it clear it's rough. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.
- ismarc 14y ago
  Make a signup page to be part of the beta, include the disclaimer that it's free during the beta but once the service is publicly available it will be charged for and the fees are waived during the beta in exchange for bug reports, possible issues/downtime, etc. Then, whenever someone signs up, just automatically send them an invite. You don't limit the people who want to use it in the beta and can provide valuable feedback and you set expectations appropriately for leaving free status and to the state of the application. And if you think that you may get a bad rap for being in "beta" and it not being as good as Google's beta, just call it "alpha" instead.

pygorex 14y ago

> This is really interesting. I'm planning my own limited invite-only beta rollout. However, this isn't the first time I heard it's a time-waster. Does anyone else have opinions on this? Yes. Don't do it. One of the biggest problems you're going to have at the get-go is finding people who actually give a shit about your product/service. Adopting an invite-only system attaches a huge negative filter to this problem: you are making it more difficult for prospective users to discover and use the product. There's one very important caveat to this: If you are relatively well-known and already have a large number of people following your blog, twitter or other web presence a invite-only system can make sense. Google can do invite-only because they can command millions of eyeballs through a simple press release. You are probably not Google. When you are a somebody an invite-only system feels like an exclusive club that can create buzz & desire. When you are a nobody an invite-only system feels arbitrary and frustrating. You are probably a nobody.