Re:Show HN: Yelp for People, Reviewing Humans, chattel.me
by artmageddon on Thursday March 03, 2011 @04:05PM
(#2285774)
Personally...regarding your last point, I'd rather there was not any site like that where a person can leave feedback on a person as a whole. It's like Yelp! but for people instead, and quite frankly I don't have much trust in that site. On a professional level, LinkedIn probably works as well as I'm comfortable with.
But just for the fun of it, I gave you five stars on chattel with my city reference :)
Re:Show HN: Yelp for People, Reviewing Humans, chattel.me
by smalter on Thursday March 03, 2011 @02:46PM
(#2285463)
i'm reminded of zadie smith's article awhile back about how using facebook means to interface with the mind of mark zuckerberg -- a place where a human becomes a list of likes and a relationship status. a friend of mine has strongly encouraged me to change the copy and tone of the site to something that reflects a more fun, creative side (think chatroulette meets facebook) rather than the sort of dark, "set yourself on fire" attitude related by the site currently. i think he's on to something, but i just don't know if it's me. in some sense, i think the site mirrors a personal and universal human desire to stalk and say crazy things about people. that i know for sure.
Smalter, some feedback:
- I was initially hesitant to share via FB/twitter. Nothing in particular about the chattel itself, rather I don't always want to throw something on my news feed without knowing exactly what it'll do and even when I do know I'm not too inclined to put stuff on my feed from 3rd party apps. It'd be good to have a different adoption vector here. When someone signs up you persuade them to try to review any of their friends already on the system.
- The overall tone is unclear: is this where friends review friends to say things like "he's cool" or this a place where professional contacts go to say "he sucks to work with". I think the latter would be more useful and that both sites could potentially exist, but you should make it more explicit.