We finally launched Zombal, your thoughts?
zombal.com
zombal.com
Usually I'd say names don't matter much, but in this case not only is your name terrible, you are taking it too far by using words like Zombs, launcher, catcher. The whole concept is novel enough, you don't want people to learn a whole new Zombie lexicon just to understand what the heck your site is about.
I'd rather just borrow terminology from elance, odesk, etc.
Other available names: ososci.com, outsosci.com, researchoid.com, fineeinstein.com...
Thanks for the other name suggestions
Do you have an email address I can write to you at? I'd like to discuss some collaboration options if you are interested.
1. there is beginning to be a serious proliferation of DIY science centers at least in the field of synthetic biology (those guys are capable of doing anything from biochem to cell bio, so they could work on these jobs.) you guys are in a good spot to take advantage of this growing network!
2. the name is just not going to fly. period. change it.
3. my first thought is "bullshit" when i read this, so your first page should basically be a testmonial: the most legit sounding scientist you can find saying how awesome his experience with your thing was. i know you're in beta and you can't do this yet, but remember you will be battling for legitimacy in a notoriously conservative community.
4. a question: what kind of thing do you see people getting done on this site? a certain category of experiments in my field (sequencing, synthesis, etc.) are already commoditized. are you aiming for somewhat more complicated stuff? make it clear.
2. Yes, seems to be the most common recommendation
3. Any ideas how you'd get this to happen?
4. I thought it would be used by primarily by college students wanting to make some cash and by companies seeking to outsource extra/menial work
And the first item actually BEING a joke makes it look even more so.
Your policies on how to deal with contested results need some work. 'Until both parties are satisfied' doesn't work very well when someone does a lot of work and the client denies that it matches what they asked for. And it could go either way at that point, too.
Regarding the payment system, I agree it’s not clear at the moment. Currently, the way it works is that when there is a dispute between the two parties, they can file for mediation. They will be charged a small fee and their case will be reviewed by an arbitrator whose decision is final and will award between 0-100% of the agreed upon price.
We will also consider revising the design.
Why has this already disappeared of the front page in just over 3 hours, garnering only 17 points (including mine)? To me, this is what HN was all about; seeing the great stuff people had been working on, reading many (often hundreds) of encouraging/helpful comments.
Here's a guy who's been an active member of HN for well over a year, busted his gut creating something, and it's met with a collective "meh".
After seeing the kind of noise you find on places like rent-a-coder, I don't think I would use a paid service myself (as a scientist, I mean). I remember someone on one of those rent-a-coder like website asking for a solution to P=NP and a huge number of bids all saying "WE CAN DO THIS IN FEW HOURS!"
Get in touch with the organisers of a national-level scientific conference. They could offer reviewers the option of getting Zombal credits for their (currently unpaid) work. Reviews are automatically meta-reviewed (by the acceptance), you could use that information.
If you do so, please make it fully automatic: conference review websites are already painful to use.
You could also use the information that the reviewers provide about themselves.
There you have lots of people who might be keen on getting some sort of recognition for their currently unpaid work.