7 ms·

The Little, Big Idea

ColinWright 13y ago
Obviously getting posted five hours ago was the wrong time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5931889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5931889 Three points, no comments. This repeat already has 7 points - let's see how much better it does.
- stefl 13y ago
  Ha - it gets a second chance! I think the main problem is that Medium can have multiple URLs for the same article. So it got picked up as an editor's pick and so has a different URL. Doesn't HN usually give a vote to the previous posting if the URL matches?
  - ColinWright 13y ago
    If the URL matches (or is "similar enough" under some secret metric) then a submission acts as an upvote for the original. In this case the URL is no "similar enough" so it's a new submission.
    - mortenjorck 13y ago
      What I'd really like to see is for this behavior to also give a link a second chance on the New page. As it stands, if someone submits something, it falls off New with no upvotes, adding a vote two days later is completely useless.
  - benohear 13y ago
    I've been wondering what was Medium's secret sauce for hitting the HN homepage so often (a part from a lot of good content). I guess multiple stabs per story helps ...
potatolicious 13y ago
Agree very much with this article - this is probably the most common problem I see when founders try to pitch me their ideas and getting me involved. They have some domain expertise, and they've let that convince them that they know exactly what needs to be built. They've slaved over designs, they've painstakingly considered all the angles they think matter, and they've been operating on pure hypotheticals for months on end. The reality is that, should you prevail and be successful, your product will only loosely resemble what you're envisioning right now. I am frequently frustrated - even by experienced technologists - whose "MVPs" are the size of the moon, and they regard validation as being only applicable to details, not the core of their concept. As someone once said, "no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy".
emn13 13y ago
medium.com - better than tedium, but not by much. Perhaps this is overly harsh, but all these superficially insightful posts in font-size: 300 strike me as rather narcissistic.
rfnslyr 13y ago
I agree with everything there, however this popped out at me and I've gotta say I disagree using 2 days as a metric to judge the feasibility of a product.
chiph 13y ago
I'm in the midst of reading this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0976470705 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0976470705 and while it's a bit "corporate", many of the concepts presented there are dead-on.

Obviously getting posted five hours ago was the wrong time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5931889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5931889 Three points, no comments. This repeat already has 7 points - let's see how much better it does.

stefl 13y ago
Ha - it gets a second chance! I think the main problem is that Medium can have multiple URLs for the same article. So it got picked up as an editor's pick and so has a different URL. Doesn't HN usually give a vote to the previous posting if the URL matches?
- ColinWright 13y ago
  If the URL matches (or is "similar enough" under some secret metric) then a submission acts as an upvote for the original. In this case the URL is no "similar enough" so it's a new submission.
  - mortenjorck 13y ago
    What I'd really like to see is for this behavior to also give a link a second chance on the New page. As it stands, if someone submits something, it falls off New with no upvotes, adding a vote two days later is completely useless.
- benohear 13y ago
  I've been wondering what was Medium's secret sauce for hitting the HN homepage so often (a part from a lot of good content). I guess multiple stabs per story helps ...

potatolicious 13y ago

Agree very much with this article - this is probably the most common problem I see when founders try to pitch me their ideas and getting me involved. They have some domain expertise, and they've let that convince them that they know exactly what needs to be built. They've slaved over designs, they've painstakingly considered all the angles they think matter, and they've been operating on pure hypotheticals for months on end. The reality is that, should you prevail and be successful, your product will only loosely resemble what you're envisioning right now. I am frequently frustrated - even by experienced technologists - whose "MVPs" are the size of the moon, and they regard validation as being only applicable to details, not the core of their concept. As someone once said, "no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy".

emn13 13y ago

medium.com - better than tedium, but not by much. Perhaps this is overly harsh, but all these superficially insightful posts in font-size: 300 strike me as rather narcissistic.

rfnslyr 13y ago

I agree with everything there, however this popped out at me and I've gotta say I disagree using 2 days as a metric to judge the feasibility of a product.

chiph 13y ago

I'm in the midst of reading this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0976470705 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0976470705 and while it's a bit "corporate", many of the concepts presented there are dead-on.