What I Learned Co-Founding Dribbble
simplebits.com
simplebits.com
What launched Dribbble into a high orbit was a combination of three things.
1. It was really well executed. It didn't just look good, it has zero friction in use. The UX was flawless. You'd think "I wonder if I can do this", click where it would logically belong and, lo and behold, that thing was there and it worked exactly as you'd expect. It was, to use pg's qualifier, delightful.
2. It was seeded with top-tier designers from the start whom Dan was able to recruit because he was well-known in respective circles. If I were to try and reproduce this, it won't work no matter who good the site was, simply because I am nobody with no street rep.
3. Invitation-only system that was completely closed to the public in the beginning. All you'd see are "leaked" screenshots on sites like PatternTap from the member of the cool boys club, and they looked spectacular. So when they allowed public in, still with no way to post, the whole thing just took off - it already had the community that was massively appealing and it was flattering to become a part of it. Invites were golden, the hype was over the top.
Regrettably, after it was sold to Tiny/Meta the quality of the site took a nose dive. They keep pushing out questionable "improvements" that clearly aim to improve their engagement stats rather than to be actually useful to the members. They reworked Pro accounts, bloating them with very niche and largely useless features and using that to raise the prices. What used to be an annual $20 no-brainer tip to Dan and Rich for their great job become an obnoxious $60/year subscription. They were getting an earful with every such improvement, so they now disable comments on every new announcement. I really wish Dan was back an the helm. He and Rich showed very unusual levels of restraint and common sense, and they did in fact listen to the people rather their analytics numbers.
* A Dribbble member since 2010.
Sadly this is the case so many times when I read these types of articles with hopes of real insights. There's some mention like "so I was talking to my friend who founded Huge Startup and he was like 'yea, great idea!'. So I built my prototype and sent it off to other person from Hot Unicorn and it just grew organically because of my hard work and smarts!"
On shirts (and swag):
My startup had a mascot at the end and I wish we would have had it upfront and had stickers.
It may seem trite but it's even documented in books like Managing the Unmanageable (or might have been Peopleware) that Apple made shirts for projects. When I worked at NatGeo we made internal swag for our project.
For me personally, living in a world of intangible software, stickers and shirts give me something physical I can hold in my hand. Something I can wear or point to and relate to what I'm doing.
On not knowing what you're doing:
I think the best people I've worked with are very intelligent and curious and do great work for things they don't understand because they ask a ton of questions to learn it which helps lead to epiphanies. It doesn't always shake out that way but with a group of motivated individuals it is so rewarding.
On everything being temporary:
Leaving design / trends aside and looking at our code-- our engineering-- this is absolutely true. For any devops engineers out here reading this: repeatability helps a TON. It's so much easier to migrate from bash scripts to RPM/Deb and from RPM/Deb to Docker. Or from [Puppet|Chef|Ansible|Salt] to [New Flavor Of The Week]. Once it's codified in some way it's so easy to move it forward. Automation == repeatability == freedom.
On people are everything:
Please, please, please don't hire smart jerks. Great, you're smart, you can program in 10 languages and worked at a FANG. If the team doesn't want to sit next to you and work with you on a project I am hoping to shape my life, my future and my family's outcomes 8+ hours a day (even remote) it's going to spoil the whole bunch.
I could go on and on for each section. I loved this article. Y'all will certainly find parts you disagree with but on the whole it is great and very applicable.
They interrupt every conversation (IRL or through Rocketchat) because they know absolutely everything about the subject you happend to be talking about. I have started to use the AKSHUALLY meme image in retaliation from time to time.
But what gets me the most is their self-importance. The bragging about the import people they have met, or the presentations they are asked to do. It gets really old really quick.
Very few people are "themselves" in practice. There's a difference between how one feels and what one conveys. Communication is about conveyance.
(a) somebody is explaining something at either edge of my understanding -- either well-inside (and listening feels like a waste of time because I know this stuff) or well-outside (and listening feels like a waste of time because I don't know enough to get a solid purchase into the stream of communication).
(b) the primary purpose of the conversation is setting expectations or attempting to provide motivation, but it goes on for more than twice the minimum necessary communication
(c) I'm distracted by some unresolved issue I care about more.
(c) is clearly my issue. (a) & (b) are arguably failures of the other party as much as anything I'm doing, but I feel like I could probably get better at responses here.
If anybody has any hints, I might even try to listen. :)
1. No well-actually’s
2. No feigned surprise
3. No backseat driving
4. No subtle -isms
https://www.recurse.com/social-rulesAnd that’s really hard to shrug off.
In the real world, some people are annoying and you should learn how to cope with it instead of having artificial rules to defend against it.
None of the issues in this list are really that offensive or disruptive of the regular work day. If I worked at a place that had these rules, I would quit.
A lot of what they are doing is likely driven by intense loneliness combined with learned self-defense behaviors. Being ugly back is unlikely to really fix anything. It just feeds the toxic cycle of one-upmanship.
#2 and #3 are only effective if you're Dan Cederholm. He already had a reputation which put him in a very luxurious position to essentially choose his first users and have them actually use it. The same goes for #3 – imagine if all of the "people you want on your platform" got tshirts and postcards from every startup that wanted them?
The caveat being that you have to make sure the people you're inviting fit somewhere in your customer profile. You can get discouraging feedback if your initial invitees don't fit your product.
As an aside, I like the idea of ending a response with "But you can do whatever you want." I'm going to end every work email today with that!
People like symbols and having artifacts from a specific time in their life. Get the tshirts/hoodies, but don't spend more than a couple hours picking a design.
You want to talk about playing house (awesome phrase by the way) even thinking about cool digs. That’s playing house.
edit: It is in this lecture: https://startupclass.samaltman.com/courses/lec03/
It is described as "...because while imitating all the outward forms of starting a startup, they have neglected the one thing that is actually essential, which is to make something people want."
As a benefit to readers who aren't already familiar with Dribble, or with the author, perhaps he could add a quick introductory sentence to the article saying both who "I" refers to, and also what Dribble is.
Interestingly, neither anywhere appears on the page anywhere, nor above the fold on the "About" page.
PS: Seems like a good article and a very interesting author.
> 17. Write, teach, and share what you’re learning
I totally agree. Getting into blogging, and being a part of a blogging community can be a great way to connect with people in your field, and help others along the way.
> 18. Don’t take funding
Yes!
> 19. Take care of yourself first
This is too often under-emphasized.
> 20. Knowing when to let go
Something that we all probably struggle with.
VC money is about scaling fast and colonizing. It may not be for everyone and I'm guessing tons of great products got destroyed because they tried to grow too fast before getting a product market fit.
https://medium.com/@awilkinson/dribbble-2-0-c2cd1fa184c5#.8k...
I basically go to https://dribbble.com/colors/E94F2E with a color I'm pondering about, and just find pleasing combos, click through to their palette. Very cool. I was thinking it would be nice to have a vscode plugin color picker based on this. It's certainly help me make nicer looking things.
I have a project idea that i think is pretty good and think could actually be useful to people and fill a niche, but:
* Nobody close to me I mentioned it to seems really interested.
* I am not 100% sure it would actually work/be useful/generate revenue/...
* I work full time and don't really want to invest my week-ends developing an idea I'm not sure will catch on.
What's the best next step? How do I evaluate my idea's chances? How can I get feedback without risking it getting stolen (very little chance but it would sting)
Then show it here :) .
The risk of it "getting stolen" exists, of course.. but if you don´t do it it´s exactly the same. If you aren´t convinced, you think someone else will have the time and commitment to do it? Unless they were already planning on it.
My recommendation: go ahead and do it. Maybe you need some structured help, join a hackathon?
Thanks for the tips!
"Dribbble" is good because you can tell people "the name is 'dribble' with three b's" and people will immediately know how to spell it and their first instinct will be "dribbble.com" and if they search for it, it will be the top search result.
Contrast that with a properly-spelled word like "Dribble." Their app will be nowhere near the top of any search result and people will go to dribble.com which is no-doubt already registered so they'll lose traffic because the domain will have to be something else unintuitive like dribble.io or dribbleapp.com.
Totally agree with that. great point. I asked his question cause I am considering 3 letters in my startups name and I often use Dribbble as a reference that it can be done. I've done for the exact reason you mentioned. In 2019, getting a .com domain + instagram + twitter handles is really difficult.
> I know. What a moron I was.
I don't think that's moronic. No one should hold it against you if you have to say no to things because you already have a full plate. Saying "no" is healthy. People should do it (politely, of course) more often.
I did a quick search and found a PDF [0] (page 8) referencing a study from 1986, but a lot of work has been done on typography and readability over the years. Actually, even though it’s pretty old, that document is full of solid design advice.
[0] http://core.ecu.edu/engl/tpc/MennoMenno/ftp/williams%202000....
Not sure I'd consider any company good that bans (highly followed) users who disagree with the owners or criticize the site on other social networks.
On a different note, maybe I just see this differently.
> “In this specific case, community flags triggered a temporary suspension."
It seems like the comments this user was making did not resonate with users of the site. This is the reality of having a social site: you have to deal with people's actions, decisions, and opinions, however rational or irrational you view them to be. It's the same kind of thing that happens almost anywhere else in any other social situation.
https://dribbble.com/turnislefthome
50k followers, no new shots since February. This isn't a "rogue account" posting "inappropriate content."
Don't you think it is suspect that his account (no activity in months) is "flagged" on the same day the CEO blocks him on Twitter for legitimate chirps?
I don't know and I'm not going to try to guess, but I think the simplest answer is the most likely and the simplest answer is that the angry rant elicited strong reactions from multiple people.
Dribbble got from him being a member far more than he got from being on Dribbble. If there's someone who full on deserves the right to criticize the site, that'd be him.
CEO picked a personal fight with one of most visible and respected members. He should've not. It was indeed _petty_.
> CEO picked a personal fight
Did he though? That's not evident. Maybe you know differently?
Honestly, I don't really care, but I see one guy ranting in public, throwing around angry insults and accusations without backup and I'm OK if people don't give him what he wants.