Item — HN Reader

Thank you very much!

At the moment I'd like to keep it at just a single flat fee: $10 for a review. (It's only $5 right now for people beta testing)

No matter what the size. So if you have a short doc you'll get lots of edits, and a long doc will get a good look and some comments on how to improve but not a detailed proof read.

I like keeping it that way so you can hit the button and always know what to expect. You don't have to worry "how much is this one going to cost me now". You'll just know.

I see a lot of other folks charging per word. I might play with that if folks don't like the flat fee.

Reviewers currently only see the original. I don't have a feedback mechanism in place yet for the reviewers to see how their changes are getting accepted. It's on the todo list.

1 comments

You're welcome!

Re:price

I guess for me the current pricing structure is a bit more vague. I get that knowing how much I'll be billed before I hit the button is a good thing but I don't really know what I'll get in terms of quality or quantity of reviews.

My recommendation is to setup brackets based on word count and then tiers within those. So, for instance, (using completely arbitrary numbers):

0-50 words: 5 reviews ($5), 10 reviews ($8), 25 ($12); 51-100 words, 3 reviews ($5), 10.....and so on. Rigging up the javascript to make that determination would be trivial.

The reason I prefer this approach is that the content that I would need reviewed are fragments. Writings such as product blurbs and headlines are often extremely small in length but are the content that is likely to be hot-swapped most frequently, thus needing the most reviews, for AB tests.

In more cases than not, getting those small content blocks right is far, far more crucial than having a blog reviewed. A small blurb may only need 3 passthroughs but I may want to start with 10 on a headline and continue to buy revisions until I'm satisfied or the AB tests are concluded.

  Reviewers currently only see the original. I don't have a feedback mechanism in place yet for the reviewers to see how their changes are getting accepted. It's on the todo list.

The revision structure, imo, is your most powerful feature. Perhaps something as simple as the owner is the only one that can accept but anyone that knows the publicly facing url can submit changes would work at first. It would be akin to a lot of the pastebin-esk sites out there with a bit of a twist.

This way, I could submit my changes into you (and you send them over to whomever) for review but I could also send them over to my wife (whom is also subject to my persistent requests for reviews).

Most importantly though, the history gives the reviewer a sense of state and a better indication of intent and direction.

Anyway, good luck man. Keep HN informed and I look forward to kicking the tires.

This is tremendous feedback. I'm insanely appreciative of that. Great insight I'll chew on. Want to email me for an invite? nate.kontny gmail.

He could also offer different levels of review.

Sometimes I want my writing picked apart for the slightest error, but at other times I want broader, more general feedback.

Nate said it perfectly with So if you have a short doc you'll get lots of edits, and a long doc will get a good look and some comments on how to improve but not a detailed proof read.

However, I don't think review depth should be strictly determined by length. Then again, this pricing structure would add more complexity, so go figure.