Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1mbsite | Hacker News Reader

Respectfully this is a non-issue. Every social network’s homepage looks exactly like mine - a short description and a log in form. Go to Twitter or Facebook and their homepage will look exactly the same. People are nitpicking. I also have multiple paragraphs explaining the app so I actually am more explanatory than most social networks. I recommend actually joining the site and seeing how it works before hopping onto the bandwagon from last year - I think that’s only fair

View on HN

People join social networks to socialise --there's a clue in the name. If said network respects their privacy, doesn't shove ads in their face and doesn't annoy them, those are all welcome additional bonus points. But the primary reason is to interact with other people.

I think you're pretty misguided if you think many people will flock to a social network that [with respect] is almost unheard of, when they; can't even see how many other people are using it / read what kind of topics are being discussed there / gauge what the 'tone' of the place is / see whether anyone they know is already there.

You're doing the equivalent of asking people to pay to get into a nightclub, without letting them know what kind of people go there, what kind of music they play, or even whether there's anyone else inside.

It's not bandwaggon jumping to point this out. It's just a really obvious barrier to entry that you refuse to recognise, even though you've had it pointed out to you more than once and for over a year.

Unfortunately just because a couple people on Hacker News requested a different homepage it doesn’t change how the market works. Twitter’s homepage is nothing but a log in form and so is Facebook’s. Vers’ homepage has paragraphs explaining the site - it is more explanatory than the other social networks you get a better idea of what you’re joining than with the others. You don’t see a public feed on Facebook or Twitter’s homepage. This is my hard work and you’re writing me off on a technicality

Dalton has a valid point, you're literally describing every social media site out there right now. Why is he in the wrong for doing the same?

Go to Twitter logged out, what do you see? How about Facebook?

Now, how do you view anything on these platforms while not a member? You have a link somewhere, a tweet, a facebook post, something someone shared that you clicked.

Now look at Vers... You think you can't see inside because you came to a door with no walls on either side and thought "I can't see unless I unlock that door" then walk away.

Want to peek into Vers without signing in, you need to find a link you can view, just like the rest of social networks you're used to.

Here, I took time out of my day to find a link for you. https://vers.social/@dalton

  >Go to Twitter logged out, what do you see? How about Facebook?

With respect to the dev; most people have a pretty good idea what Facebook and Twitter are about and some idea of the huge numbers of people using each site. It's also highly likely that we all know countless people with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc. accounts. So, even if there's a locked door with a "Create an Account to See What's Inside!" sign at the entrance, we've a pretty good idea what's going on inside, can be pretty sure that we'll find someone in there to interact with, and so make an informed decision as to whether to venture in.

Vers? How many people have even heard of it --never mind know anyone with an account there? So, what's the incentive for me [or anyone] to go to the hassle of setting up yet another website account, just to see what's inside? The huge incumbent social media websites don't need to try and draw people in. New upstarts do. And I think it takes a bit more enticement than "We're not going to tell you what's in here. But buy a ticket anyway. It'll be great!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com