The top free-to-play monetization tricks - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/194933/The_Top_F2P_Monetization_Tricks.php <comment><USER2> This is disgusting to me. I'll give you that there's a fine line between pain & pleasure in a game (it takes some pain to feel the pleasure), but this just feels dirty. I've said it before: it reminds me of an abusive relationship.

It starts off great: treat the girlfriend well, give her flowers, treat her like a queen. As time goes by, slowly needle away at her confidence, until she feels dependent on you. Do this so slowly that she doesn't even realize what you're doing. Eventually she is essentially dependent on you, and even if you treat her like garbage, she keeps coming back for more. In fact, she even blames herself for things going wrong.

It's terrible. I refuse to play games that do this. I get that they're incredibly successful, and rake in tons of money, but this is not something I want any part of.

<comment><USER3> Your relationship example is more about dependency or addiction which you see in game reward techniques to keep players leveling up. Standard fare where there's a subscription model.

This is the other side; more fraudulent than evil. He summed it up in the first paragraph; make it so the player has insufficient information to make an informed [investment] decision.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From Wayne's World (1992):

    		Kids know dick.
    		I watch 'em in my arcades.

    		They stand like lab rats hitting
    		the feeder bar to get food pellets.

    		As long as they pump in quarters,
    		who gives a shit?

    		Let me ask you.

    		What's your single biggest problem
    		in the arcade business?

    		Well, uh, keeping the customer
    		informed of new product.

    		Like our new game called Zantar.

    		Zantar is a gelatinous cube
    		that eats warriors in a village.

    		If you eat a chieftain,
    		you go up a level.

    		Beauty is, you can't
    		get to the next level,

    		kids keep coughing up quarters.

    		Gelatinous cube eats village.
    		It's terrific.

<comment><USER3> Reminds me of playing games like R-Type in the arcade as a kid. When you died you had about 5 seconds to decide whether to continue or not.

Continuing was always the wrong choice as you would find yourself on the hard level with level 1 weaponry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is one verbal thing that i don't see people do in these types of discussions. Nobody ever boils it down to the very simple fact, this being:

        Some games are built to sell the player cheats.

I do not know if this is because many people discussing this aren't old enough to remember magazines with cheat code sections, or a few years later, the time spent on websites accumulating collections of cheat codes and easter eggs.

Once upon a time things were build into the game to ease testing, or allow players to dick around in the game if they didn't feel like hunting after extra lives, usually used after the game was beaten.

Nowadays some games put these into a New Game + mode, or make them unlockable with achievements.

Other games, especially in the mobile realm however make games that can't be completed sicne they are playable ad infinitum, but are designed so the tediousness ratchets up over time. And then they employ the master stroke:

       They sell the player one-time cheat codes.

<comment><USER6> Or in other words:

>Games are built to make players feel powerful. Players understand that money is as much a currency as their time is, and some would rather trade their money to feel powerful than spend their time to build up to feeling powerful.

<comment><USER7> But what if the game knows if you buy the cheats, and it makes you feel more powerful in the short term before hobbling you extra hard in the medium term so you buy more cheats?

So that you buy a token to increase your power but the transaction actually decreases your power, but is cleverly disguised so you don't realise?

The weaker you get, the more "power-ups" you buy, which only makes you weaker and more dependent on power ups.

That's what is particularly evil about some of these mechanisms.

<comment><USER6> If you spend $60 on a AAA game which makes you feel powerful is it less evil than spending once $2 in a F2P game which also makes you feel equally powerful? Is it only more evil once the user has spent more than $60 to feel powerful, or is it only the fact that the user can spend a little at a time to feel powerful that makes it evil compared to the one off $60 purchase?

<comment><USER8> Do you see that the problem is with people who _deliberately use state of the art manipulation methods_ , backed by tons of cognitive science research, to milk people for their cash?

There's selling, and then there's just stealing from people. Many F2P border on the second one.

<comment><USER9> So if I'm a gifted salesman who's hit upon those methods by chance and paying attention, that's fine, as long as there's no Science?

<comment><USER8> This is irrelevant.

It's fine if you use Science as long as you sell me something of real value, so the transaction is win-win for both of us. It's not fine if you trick me into buying things that have little or no value for me. Also, if you had something valuable to sell, you wouldn't need manipulation tricks.

<comment><USER9> It's not a devastating rebuttal to everything you were saying, but it is highly relavent as a pompt for you to clarify your point - which this is a good start at. I don't think we're quite to somewhere cogent, though; real value is subjective, so I'm not sure exactly how we draw that line - particularly when it comes to entertainment. If a salesman convinces me to buy the pricier golf clubs, maybe I will have a "better" experience out playing golf, but under what conditions is that "real value" when I would have had fun and got exercise either way?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I was reading a review of a game. The game was a clearly labelled demo, and had a single IAP to unlock the full game. The reviewer called this unsavoury.

That's a great shame because it means people offering demos with honestly priced games are called unsavoury and people offering these scummy monetization tricks get more money and cash.

<comment><USER5> I don't see that in the article at all. At what point does he decry the shareware model as abusive in that article?

<comment><USER10> He doesn't. I don't think it is. Here's a review where they call a demo version with paid upgrade to the full version with no other IAPs "tacky".

[http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/Glyph+Quest/review.asp...](http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/Glyph+Quest/review.asp?c=57026)

<comment><USER5> Ah, i didn't realize that you were referring to a completely different article. I read that one and have to say i think you're not seeing the subtle differentiation he is making. He is not against shareware altogether.

He's slightly annoyed that the game doesn't outright explain that it's a shareware/demo/whatever, which is a reasonable complaint when you keep in mind that many other games do this by having their demos labeled "Lite" or similar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've been playing Puzzle and Dragons for about 7 months, and have probably spent the equivalent of a $15/mo subscription over that period of time. The mechanics to make you pay absolutely feel contrived and scummy; the game strongly limits how much you can play in a given time period (stamina), and playing more than that requires the equivalent of $1. Dungeons also have strange difficulty levels, where the boss is _significantly_ more challenging than the levels leading to it, so after you've invested the time to get there, you have the choice of "paying" $1 each time you are about to lose, or leaving the dungeon and potentially having to "pay" $1 to play more -- especially since the harder dungeons eat up a larger portion of your stamina. The worst, though, is that obtaining better monsters requires a slot-machine style gamble, and each try costs around $5. There's such a high chance of getting a mediocre monster instead, that there's actually a term called "Gung-trolled."

That said, the game is very well designed and a lot of fun, and lends itself well to being played during a short commute. There are a subset of players who make a lot of progress without any in-app purchases, but the game constantly makes you question what's worth more: your time, or $1.

Personally, I would be happier with a $5-10/mo subscription fee, but instead I'm left with a twinge of guilt every time I make an in-app purchase.

<comment><USER12> I've often thought that F2P games should be strictly regulated like gambling is. No one questions the 18+ law on fruit machines in the UK, but we allow a roulette style IAP for a F2P game with no regulation?

The worst part is, if you sent kids into a casino, there's at least a chance they'd make their money back!

We regulate gambling because its effects are insidious and the addiction devastating. It can destroy lives. How is "coercive monetisation" in F2P games any different, other than the fact that it's a relatively new phenomenon?

<comment><USER11> What sort of regulation are you envisioning?

<comment><USER12> I'd probably suggest some sort of restriction on IAP amounts. Under-16s in the UK can play fruit machines, but only upto a £5 jackpot before it gets classified as adult gambling where serious amounts of money can be lost. This is on the assumption that people won't bother putting more than £5 in, as they know that they won't make a profit. This assumption doesn't hold in the IAP- world as the "profit" for the player is ostensibly, having a fun time. Although as the article shows, in reality a lot of these game monetisation tactics are really about players paying to remove an artificially enforced _pain_ on the player, rather than to increase the fun.

So maybe just a hard limit on _total_ IAP purchases for each game targeted at under-16s.

Also, the same restrictions that apply to gambling advertising should apply to F2P/IAP games, for the exact same reasons.

The trickiest part about it would be defining what _is_ an acceptable game vs. an unacceptable game for the purposes of regulation. When does an acceptable F2P game like Team Fortress 2 become an unacceptable game like Candy Crush Saga? Maybe there are some people out there who think TF2 is completely unacceptable too.

I'm not saying it isn't difficult, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. In my mind I see both gambling and these F2P "money" games occupying the exact same ethical arena.

EDIT: The hard cap on IAP purchases for under-16s doesn't even need to be all that low, it just needs to exist _at all_. Placing it at £30 would limit the potential damage done to the child, whilst also being relatively fair to the game company as it's roughly the same price as a game bought off the shelf.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> God, this is devious. While reading it I was thinking, "where does the sarcasm part end?" but it never did. I mean, as an aspiring indy dev I can understand the need to make a living, but this is in the same league with casino money. I really hope this is just a phase, and people would collectively understand that these games are designed to take your money, and that they're not worth it.

<comment><USER14> This is the voice of a high-functioning sociopath. It's shocking because we usually don't hear these things spoken out loud, although by now it's pretty well known, or at least widely suspected, that the top management of many of the most successful corporations are largely sociopathic.

Look hard at the advertising and sales techniques that we are awash in: this is the style of thinking that animates them. Why does a car commercial have music? To trick the brain into making a major financial decision based on emotion, bypassing the rational process. Good for Toyota, bad for you.

One of Steve Jobs' proudest moments, in one of his last keynotes, was announcing an alliance with Zynga. This is the man who spoke derisively of others' "taste".

<comment><USER15> At the end of the article, in the first comment, he says:

"Note that as a rule I do not publish my F2P monetization models. In this case, I am publishing the methods used by others to make money games, and since I only make skill games, I'm not creating any competition for myself. While the information I have provided here should lower the barrier to entry for commercially effective money games, I hope the discussion will lead some of you to consider making skill games instead."

<comment><USER14> I know. Please read the reply to hatu I left 15 minutes before your comment. In case it's still not clear: "this is the voice" means the author is letting us hear this voice, not that he personally is one of them

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _King.com was generous enough to point out that their target demographic for CCS is middle aged women. 80% of their players are women, only 34% of their players are under the age of 30, and only 9% are under the age of 21._

The crux of the article is that people under 25 are particularly susceptible to tricks used to get people to pay for in-game items. To refute that, King would have to say something along the lines of, "x% of our revenue comes from middle aged women". To say, "x% of our players are middle aged women" doesn't at all address the point brought up in the article.

For example, it could be possible that only 34% of CCS players are under 30 but still be responsible for 90% of CCS revenue.

<comment><USER17> I think this comment, and the article's assertion about age ranges, show that neither you nor the author know any middle aged women addicted to candy crush.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, I seem to remember that Zynga targeted bored, middle-aged housewives from the midwest more than anybody else.

18-25 year olds have probably moved on from Candy Crush. Once they hit the wall, they probably just throw it away for something new.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've long thought that this boils down to trust.

The strong reaction against IAP from many people (including me) comes from counter-aligned goals between the designer and the player in games with IAPs.

In a traditional game, I trust that the designer wants me to finish the game and if I'm stuck, I just need to play a little more or retrace my steps and look for the correct method of continuation.

With IAP-based games, when I'm stuck, I don't know if additional effort is going to be helpful or if I just need to pay the bribe to continue. As a result, I feel like I'm being coerced any time I have difficulty with the game.

The enjoyable tension of well-designed traditional game becomes a constant feeling of coercion to spend more money. It's just not fun.

</comment><comment><USER20> As background for some of the techniques used in F2P, there's a classic reference on behavioral psychology applied to games from 2001, way before the whole F2P phenomenon: [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3085/behavioral_game_d...](http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3085/behavioral_game_design.php)

</comment><comment><USER21> The only redeeming thing I can find in all of this is that _some_ game makers actually have a semblance of morals and provide what I call a decent (in both senses of the word) F2P experience.

NimbleBit is (or at least was when I played) one of those studios. I played (and LOVED) Tiny Tower a few years ago. I'd say that game gave me a solid 6 months of casual gaming enjoyment.

It was, in my view, a perfectly fair F2P experience -- you could play the entire game casually - and get to the end - without ever spending a penny. It took a bit longer, sure, but it never got to the point of absurdity. You'd play a bit and know that a new level would be ready in a few days, but there was plenty to do in the meantime.

You could buy Towerbux, though, if you were impatient. They never crossed the line -- it was truly targeted at the impatient. Towerbux could be earned, but that took time, and spending real money was simply something for those that wanted instant gratification.

I think that's a perfectly fair division of players -- almost like sin punishing sin ;) Those that have patience could enjoy the game for free. Those that lacked it could get a quick fix with some real $.

I spent a total of $20 on the game eventually - partially because I too wanted a bit of a speedup, but mostly because I felt so good about the developer's genuineness that I wanted to reward them with some revenue.

<comment><USER22> HalfBrick studios did this with Jetpack Joyride.

Everything could be done with what was there in game, but if you wanted to do it faster, you could pay. Thats it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. I think many game developers (myself included) struggle with monetization in a market that largely demands F2P games. Using tricks like these is a constant temptation and it's important to see how devious these methods are in their manipulation of gamers. Kudos to Ramin for writing such an informative summary.

</comment><comment><USER24> The thing that I find so disturbing about all this is that it does away with the notion of providing value for value. These game companies are not trying to make the best game possible for their customers, they are trying to manipulate and deceive their customers.

<comment><USER20> How do you reconcile earning money with giving them "the best game possible" for free? Donationware never worked, so you _have_ to hold something back from them that you monetize. And you have to make sure that thing is desirable.

Of course some developers are going to be gross when doing that, but it is absurd to extrapolate that all F2P games are manipulative and deceiving. If even in the most visible, sophisticated and successful examples of the genre, a huge percentage of people are playing for months without paying a dime, you can't honestly say that the primary element that defines the game is "deceiving and manipulative".

No matter how much technique is put into the monetization design of a game, NOBODY is going to pay if they are not having a good time and being entertained.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Reminiscent of Machiavelli's 'The Prince'.

</comment><comment><USER25> Perhaps a disclaimer on F2P games might help:

"Knowledge of the presence of persuasive mechanisms in a technology may sensitize users to them and decrease their efficacy. Therefore, in some cases, such knowledge might diminish the effectiveness of a generally positive persuasion. This reasoning led us to our design principle: The creators of a persuasive technology should disclose their motivations, methods, and intended outcomes, except when such disclosure would significantly undermine an otherwise ethical goal." [1]

I like the idea of transparency into a company's motivations beyond corporate doublespeak, although not sure how one can enforce transparency.

[1] Toward an Ethics of Persuasive Technology. Berdichevsky, D. and Neuenschwander, E., 1999.

</comment><comment><USER26> I avoid F2P games just like

I just wish Apple would give me a way to bypass all F2P games in the App Store search (not all IAP games are F2P, e.g.: Carcassonne). Right now, I have to click through and see if any IAP has a "coin" feel to it, and if so, I simply ignore the game.

</comment><comment><USER27> Wow, this made me feel really naive. I know game developers want to make cool games _and_ make good money doing it, but I didn't know about the devs who didn't care about the former. Again, I guess I'm just naive/unaware about this scene.

</comment><comment><USER28> Casinos have known for decades on how to get people to pay for flashing lights and loud sounds with slot machines. These "games" are taking the same principles and going further with them.

</comment><comment><USER29> This article would have been way better with visuals for each example.

<comment><USER10> "You've read the fun introduction! Wait X minutes, or pay 1 article-gem to continue reading now?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's weird to me how many free (just as in beer) tools and games I have installed on my PC over the last couple decades when everything in app stores seems monetized.

What happened?

</comment><comment><USER31> If one runs AdSense on ones site, are ads for these type of games likely to appear if Google knows the user has been making game-related search queries?

</comment><comment><USER32> "As mentioned in my paper 'How to mention my own papers as often as possible in a single article'..."

<comment><USER33> The cited papers _do_ seem a bit narrowly authored...

Here's a paper by different authors I found interesting, "Dark Patterns in the Design of Games", [http://www.fdg2013.org/program/papers/paper06_zagal_etal.pdf](http://www.fdg2013.org/program/papers/paper06_zagal_etal.pdf)</comment></comment>


Y Combinator Challenge #8 - Dating - <AUTHOR> http://astartupaday.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/y-combinator-challenge-8-dating/ <comment><USER2> I think the matchmaker idea is good. Many people have thought, "Man, I just know that those two of my friends would be great together." And I like the way you let people sign up their friends.

However, I'm not so sure about the dating on Twitter thing. I think people want to do their dating in private. This is why dating applications on Facebook are not doing that great. People have a hard enough time plucking up the courage to ask out the object of their affection. Letting a bunch of other people know about it as well would be way too embarassing.

<comment><USER3> _Man, I just know that those two of my friends would be great together._

I'm still a little skeptical how a web app would replace 2 phone calls and a blind date. I also have no problem being proven wrong.

<comment><USER4> because many people don't like going on a blind date, its usually a very awkward experience. At least this way both people will know what the other one looks like

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One of the things that I've noticed when researching this myself is that the majority of the time, people generally dont fill out their profiles too well - which I would suggest lessens their chances of someone finding them.

Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel regarding dating sites, why not create a webapp that helps people create good custom profiles for themselves to increase their chances at finding someone?

Perhaps have it so that it can export the blocks of information which are customised for the main dating sites - to make it an easier process, and also allow for data portability across multiple dating sites.

That would be one of the ways I'd approach this kind of problem.

<comment><USER6> I think help with profiles is an excellent idea. Before I was married (met my wife on yahoo personals way back when it was still free), I dated a lot of people I met online and a couple of women showed me the "typical" profile of a guy who approached them and they were <b>terrible</b>. It was easy to see why women were turned off. I'm sure if the guys realized how desperate and needy they came across, they'd be able to do a better job of hooking up.

<comment><USER5> exactly

 _It was easy to see why women were turned off. I'm sure if the guys realized how desperate and needy they came across, they'd be able to do a better job of hooking up._

I think there is still a stigma attached to online dating that people are scraping the bottom of the barrel- amongst women especially. In fact, while researching dating sites (I was thinking about building a competitive dating site for Australia in 06/07) I've often come across the phrase "I cant believe I'm doing this" as the first sentence in a female's profile.

You can have the best dating technology in the world, but the reality is that there are a significant number of people just dont have profiles that are any good or a real judge of a person's character. I think this problem is compounded when you consider that often people dont have very descriptive profiles when writing something about themselves and often write about tastes that are seemingly universal but non specific. EG, if I wrote I liked movies, as opposed to writing I liked Tarantino and Kubrick films.

Often I seen profiles (of both men and women, so this problem is not gender specific) where people are just trying to meet minimum word counts. Any kind of matching technology based off keyword matching in this kind of situation simply fails.

I think for a technology like this to have any decent chance, there would need to be a couple of core components.

1) Point and click profile writing, where people can click on hobbies and it can attempt to write something for them. You would also have to ensure that profile's dont look like canned responses.

2) Photo touching up - Often when I've touched up photo's in photoshop for others, I find myself using the same techniques, with often very similar settings on the sliders - if there was a way you could automatically detect and touch up photos, then it would be fantastic. I'm not sure if there are any sites out there that currently have this feature, but it would make a great standalone site too, especially with photo sharing sites and social networking sites being popular.

3) Profile exporting. If I've written a profile for say match.com and I want to goto eharmony.com, I dont want have to rewrite significant chunks of it to match the new format, especially given a large number of people have trouble writing even one profile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Perhaps a feature like facial merging (a la <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=260642>) of the couple to show potential cuteness/ugliness of babies is something to consider.

The crowd then chooses couples, and votes on results, and hence couples are connected/introduced by crowdsourcing.

hotornot + crowdsourcing + topic of common interest to break the ice.

<comment><USER5> I was throwing a concept around with a friend of mine about 2 years ago where the dating site would learn what type of people you're attracted too when you click on profile pictures (using some kind of facial recognition technology presumably) and then be able to suggest profiles you would be potentially interested in.

The side effect of this would be that shy people could still keep photo's in private galleries, but still get taken into the overall equation and potentially matched up with someone who might find them attractive.

Fortunately (or unfortunately? Depends how you look at it I guess) we had no real interest in starting up a dating site at the end of the day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've got it, lets create a virtual experience dating site. That way you never have to meet the person - you can just do things together from a distance ;)

<comment><USER9> You could even throw in a free latex keyboard cover as a promotional item.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I posted something similar on my blog. [http://freememory.org/2008/07/28/lovin-touchin-squeeeezin- ea...](http://freememory.org/2008/07/28/lovin-touchin-squeeeezin-each-other- dating-part-ii/)

Very cool idea. :)

<comment><USER11> <http://lkml.org/lkml/2000/8/25/132>

<comment><USER10> I never claimed not to be lazy. :) And if money were no object (i.e. if I were a student, or didn't have a family), I would at least take a stab at doing it myself. But, alas: money is an object, my job is demanding and my family comes first. (Although I don't deny that I am partially making excuses for myself).

Talk is cheap but life, sadly, isn't.

<comment><USER11> I hear you, please don't take my comment to heart, it was more tongue in cheek.

And I agree, family is more important but you can use it to your advantage - get your kids started early. May I suggest some bed time stories?

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/0201485419>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think the idea of bootstrapping a dating site by encouraging matchmakers to come to the site might be on to something.

<comment><USER13> What would happen if you paid matchmakers a percentage of the advertising revenues so they could work full-time like head hunters?

<comment><USER12> That would be interesting.

It hinges on whether matchmakers can work their magic only on people they actually know (which limits the number of people they could match up), or if they could do it simply by looking at profiles of people they don't know personally.

Even the most outgoing people I know have less than 1,000 friends on Facebook. How many matches could they possibly mine from that group?

<comment><USER13> Well if you actually had people with skin in the game, they have an incentive to make it work. This could mean calling people on the phone, going to visit them in person, etc. And in general I bet a really talented matchmaker could get someone to be a lot more candid than they'd otherwise be on a publicly visible profile. It's like a cap-and-trade system; by offering up a pot of gold to the winners you spur massive amounts of innovation. For example, if a matchmaker could increase his success rates by offering up dating tips and personal grooming advice then there would be a system in place promising him a pot of gold for doing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What about an aftermarket for profiles on failed dating sites? Or even ones that haven't failed yet.

Dating profile portability? Dating site messaging federation? Pay per message that crosses networks?

</comment><comment><USER15> I think what you have described is a SRSN "Simplified Registration for any Social Network" based on Twitter.

Otherwise I do not really see what makes it so different from the other Me-too dating sites.

</comment><comment><USER16> Dating problems are like depression in that the symptoms are familiar-- sentiments like "all the good ones are taken"-- but the causes are varied and numerous. No single cure is going to work for everyone, or even a large subset of the population.

Gender balance is the biggest problem with dating sites. Women get flooded with spam winks/emails and get bored sifting through the haystack of low- quality leads. Men have no way of standing out amid the spam and get very little attention.

<comment><USER17> My experience with dating sites is from a few years ago and not very extensive, but I disagree that men have no way of standing out. I'd say that a well-formed, a few paragraphs long, somewhat targeted (i.e., making references to the things in the woman's profile) and not openly desperate message gives you a very good chance of getting a reply. It's true women get a lot of attention but it's mostly trash. I think it's best to focus on profiles without photos.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How much I affect Ad revenue by blocking it? - <AUTHOR> Hi All, I have been using ad blocker since ages and now I am close to blocking over a million ads. How much ad revenue approximately did I impact? <comment><USER2> For a 'typical' web site (ex. not Facebook or about video games or anime or programming) $1 per thousand page views is a plausible value. Let's assume there are 5 ads per page, so if you block a million ads you've affected 200,000 pages. Divide by 1000 and that is $200.

</comment><comment><USER3> You said, "200,000 pages per year comes to 550 pages per day." For the average "human" I think 1/5 that number is more reasonable in terms of page visits per day.</comment>


H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act - <AUTHOR> https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/bipartisan-group-lawmakers-propose-reforms-skilled-non-immigrant-visa-programs <comment><USER2> According to the summary [https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/document...](https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/116.S.3770%20-%20H-1B%20%20L-1%20Visa%20Reform%20Act%202020%20-%20Summary_0.pdf)

* The bill would restore Congress's original intent for the H-1B and L-1 visa programs.

* The bill requires employers to make a good faith effort to recruit and hire American workers before bringing in foreign workers and prohibits employers from replacing American workers with H-1B and L-1 workers or giving preference to H-1B visa holders when they are filling open positions. It modifies existing H-1B wage requirements, and for the first time establishes wage requirements for L-1 workers. This will prevent employers from using the H-1B and L-1 programs as sources of cheap labor and encourage the hiring of qualified American workers.

* The bill prohibits employers from outsourcing H-1B and L-1 visa holders to other sites unless the employer obtains a waiver which is available only in limited circumstances when the rights of American workers are protected.

* The bill gives more authority to the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor to investigate fraud and abuse in the H-1B and L-1 programs. It requires the two departments to audit employers and share information so that visa petitions are more effectively scrutinized.

* The bill would crack down on outsourcing companies by prohibiting companies from hiring H-1B employees if they employ more than 50 people and more than 50 percent of their employees are H1B and L-1 visa holders.

* The bill creates a new H-1B visa allocation system that gives top priority to workers who have earned advanced science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) degrees from U.S. institutions.

* The bill increases penalties on those who violate the law, and provides visa holders with a list of rights before they enter the U.S. so that they are better protected against mistreatment or underpayment of wages.

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure if this bill goes in the right direction.

I know many people on the H-1B and this is the problems that I see personally:

* if you are not married, you have to get married or break up (I personally decided to get married, even though I do not believe in marriage)

* your spouse cannot work. Many of my friends have had their spouse not working for years, and going crazy.

* they cannot change job easily, they can't even quit if they're burning out to take some rest time, some of my friends feel like they are basically slaves of their current company

* if they get fired (which happened to one of my friend who works at Uber a few days ago) then their life goes to hell

* they are hard to come by (I applied twice and didn't get it, had to leave the US and wait for a year and a half for a greencard to be able to come back)

<comment><USER3> > * your spouse cannot work. Many of my friends have had their spouse not > working for years, and going crazy.

I think that has not been true in a while.

> * they cannot change job easily, they can't even quit if they're burning out > to take some rest time, some of my friends feel like they are basically > slaves of their current company

That is not necessarily true either. I have worked with plenty of H-1B workers who easily switched jobs. From what they told me their new employer takes care of all paperwork.

<comment><USER4> There's always risk of having your visa denied when changing jobs and plenty of situations where you get in a really bad place with something out of your control.

I know plenty of people that stick to a sub-optimal job out of fear of being stuck out of the US.

Changing jobs is very stressful on an H1B visa.

<comment><USER5> In addition to almost every employer making illegal demands of H1-B holders when they quit or are terminated (such as asking them to pay legal fees the holders are not supposed to be responsible for). I've had friends dealing with this multiple times.

Sure, you can get a lawyer to write a demand letter why you're hoping to not get deported before you find another job. And of course risk a reference from that job or worse. But the whole system is designed to create indentured servitude to corporations for foreign workers. Just put everyone who graduates with an advanced degree on a greencard and call it good already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Personally, I think this is the right bill to support. H1-B and L-1 have become tools used by Indian outsourcing firms to inject cheap labor into US. Apart from taking away jobs from US citizens, this also has a negative side effect of increasing visa competition (since there are only 65k visas/yr) for students who are doing their higher education in US, often in the fields of STEM - which discourages foreign students from coming to US. This bill fixes this as it prioritizes H1-B and L-1 visas from candidates who have studied in US vs. those who are applying from outside US (which is the route outsourcing firms often take). So while there are more fixes to be made on the H-1B visa, at least ensuring students who have studied in US have the first dibs at it is a good first step.

<comment><USER7> Sorry, but do americans really hurt by H1-B/L-1? I never heard about lack of need for tech people anywhere in the world. Isn't world's universities produce like 3% of required amount of tech people needed?

(Other points are valid though)

<comment><USER8> Here's an example where Disney replaced their IT workers with people on H1B

[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after- layoff...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at- disney-train-foreign-replacements.html)

<comment><USER9> Edison did the same thing several years ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> > Specifically, the bill would prohibit companies with more than 50 employees, > of which at least half are H-1B or L-1 holders, from hiring additional H-1B > employees.

<comment><USER10> Seems like Facebook is gonna to be hit really hard, it has been H1-B dependent for a while.

<comment><USER11> I strongly doubt that more than 50% of Facebook's workforce is on H-1B visas. This is really intended to stop TCS/Infosys/Wipro from bringing over cheap labor to the US.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Seems like they're going after the head shop consultancies like Infosys and TCS. Unclear what the impact on the rest of tech is.

<comment><USER11> Yes, exactly. It's this line specifically that pretty much drives that home:

> Specifically, the bill would prohibit companies with more than 50 employees, > of which at least half are H-1B or L-1 holders, from hiring additional H-1B > employees.

The only companies I can see hitting this requirement are the Infosys/TCS types. I highly doubt most of the rest of tech has > 50% H-1B employees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Proposed bills rarely go anywhere, and so are mostly off topic on HN:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20bills&sort=byDate&type=comment)

If they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon (a la [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)), that could be an exception.

</comment><comment><USER14> I think this is more or less just a political statement for the republican base. These changes have been discussed for a long time, and conservative publications / reddit have been calling for them since the unemployment numbers went up. It's not going to have much impact, and as mentioned in other posts, it only affects Infosys/TCS types consulting shops which were already revamping their organizations to work around these changes since 2014. It's election year, so not very surprising to weaponize immigration.

It's quite disappointing that the US has decided to politicize two core pillars, healthcare, and legal immigration. I think both of these should be delegated to a bipartisan body, like the judiciary.

It's also disappointing to see the senators miss an opportunity to revamp the whole program. As an Indian, who did no go to grad school in US but worked at one of the FANGs, I think H1-B/L1-B should be just scrapped all together and every foreigner who graduates from an American university should get a green card. It will hurt people like me from coming to US, but generally it will be quite good for the US university system and the tech industry, and also a blessing in disguise for people like me.

<comment><USER15> > and every foreigner who graduates from an American university should get a > green card

If you do that, aren't you just making the issue of who can come into the country for education the main problem instead of who can come in for work?

<comment><USER14> Isn't it a solved problem? US universities attract best students from all over the world, from practically every society/country/culture. It's way more diverse, selective, and productive to let universities to decide who gets to come than a rule-based system via DHS.

<comment><USER16> You will have lots of departments or entire universities dedicated to giving foreigners degrees for cash.

<comment><USER14> I am sorry if I come across any condescending, but that is how most of the current masters programs are operated. Generally, masters are considered cash cow programs that funds other research and also brings a lot of commerce to the college towns. There are some exceptions, but most of them do qualify for my hypotheses.

That being said, why is it a bad thing then? If the people are spending money to get some quality education that can be regulated within United States, then I don't see any downside in delegating the vetting process to the universities. 4 years in the United States, one family visit per year and it brings a lot of commerce to the country. If they don't perform well, then it's always upto the university to make the judgement.

<comment><USER16> Because then universities are materially interested to let everyone in. With job offers the company is both spending extra, and needs the candidate to actually perform well in the position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The best way to combat outsourcers and other bottom-feeders is to give priority based on salary (and enforce this by cross-referencing with the IRS).

This would also kill the financial incentive to hire H1-Bs for low pay.

</comment><comment><USER18> i think US gov should set up H1B audit committee to audit all interview records and summon HR head to testify on hiring practice in the big corp. any fraud will be treated like financial fraud which results in prison term.

if students cheated in college and their parents are sentenced to 5 years, i think HR head should be treated as same

</comment><comment><USER19> Senator Grassley is third in line for the presidency. If Nov's election were somehow delayed then President and VP would be out of office on 1/20/21 and Speaker out of office on 1/3/21\. He would assume office and could execute an executive order to make this act law.

<comment><USER20> Senator Grassley is third in line for the presidency ... with Senate confirmation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Every once in a while a bill like this is introduced and people waste time discussing it as if it's going to be voted on let alone pass.

This is mere political posturing, nothing more. Immigration bills are pretty hard to pass.

</comment><comment><USER22> Isn't the only reason these visas are abused is the employee lock-in? Iean how can these outsourcing companies pay low salary for these foreign workers when there's so much demand for developers?

<comment><USER23> The low salaries are mainly because of the low quality of the developers "imported" on H1B. There are plenty of options for good developers to transfer their H1B.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It hasn't even been assigned a bill number yet. This is very early.

<comment><USER25> It's Senate Bill 3770 -- it's right in the links at the bottom.

<comment><USER24> Ah. Four cosponsors, three Democrats and Bernie Sanders. Not going anywhere in the current Senate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So, everyone will switch to GC faster then?

<comment><USER26> No? This bill isn't changing GC quotas.

<comment><USER7> I meaning that L1 and friends are quite often could be changed to GC soon. If they put limit on number of L1 visas, they will simply became GC very fast.

I think they don't have quotes, this is not a lottery.

<comment><USER26> There's already a massive GC backlog for some countries (India, for example). In some distant future where backlog is cleared, fewer number of H1B/L1 visas could mean faster GC. Until then, this won't have any real impact on GC timelines.

<comment><USER7> it seems that quotes is for India and China mostly. They are quite special since they account for most of applications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Doesn't even try to solve the root cause of any problems caused by these visas. Freedom.

Just let them not be tied to their current employer. Allow them to switch jobs with minimal bureaucracy and let them compete for better jobs.

Simply allowing employees switch employers without hassles will be enough for even outsourcing companies to pay high wages - because those employees won't suck it up. They'll leave for greener pastures asap, pressuring all companies to pay higher and higher for everyone.

For all the talk of capitalism and free markets, we never seem to actually practice it.

<comment><USER28> That would definitely improve the lot of the H1B employee, and probably have an indirect effect on the companies involved to discourage H1B's (though I imagine they would recreate the ties with contracts, using things like signing bonuses and relocation reimbursement to keep people stuck in the current job). But it doesn't do anything to address the goal of this bill which is to prevent abuses of the H1B program, and "protect American workers".

<comment><USER29> It does help protect American workers by raising the H1-B salaries and thus lessening the downward pressure currently caused by the program.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I don't see how anyone can support this from a moral perspective.

Firstly, if we are not producing enough "talented" people, then we should be investing on producing more "talented" people rather than bringing them from overseas. If companies can just bring in foreigners to undercut american workers then what incentive is there for companies and local/state/federal governments to invest in american workers/people.

Secondly, if we are stealing "talented" people from other countries, how fair is it to these countries that need these people to develop. Isn't it amoral for a wealthy nation to steal resources from a poor nation just so that some billionaire can get cheaper workers and/or suppress wages? And if poor countries realize that their "talented" people are going to be taken by wealthy nations, then what incentive is there for these countries to invest in and develop their own people?

If politicians supports this, then I propose we also open up these elected positions to foreigners. Let foreigners run for the senate, house and presidency. Lets see how they like it. Let them also bid for the wages as well. Don't see a downside from where I'm standing as it can't get any worse than the current political class we have.

</comment><comment><USER31> Honestly a lot of the arguments about "importing cheap labour" are economically shallow and ignore the benefits that immigration has for the overall economy.

I recommend this book for a really detailed exploration: [https://www.smbc- comics.com/openborders/](https://www.smbc-comics.com/openborders/)

<comment><USER32> There are good arguments for open borders in the equilibrium. But it's very hard to argue that they're good for the people who's jobs are lost. This is the classic median/mean reasoning error. Open borders are good for the arithmetic mean person. They are not necessarily good for the median person.

For instance, the outsourcing of american manufacturing to China has seriously heart middle America. There is no real way around that. It has arguably been good on net for _the world_ , but it has been quite bad for those specific communities. It's important that we fully recognize those tradeoffs, and not imply that unfettered immigration is a universal good.

It is almost certainly good for 'the economy'. But it can be quite bad for most of the individuals in that economy, and it's very important to disambiguate those things. On balance I think I come down in favor of more immigration, particularly high skilled, but I think it's important that we not pretend like people aren't seriously harmed by it, too.

<comment><USER33> I am not so sure, without cheap manufacturing the midwest could never afford their trucks, their tractors, their ATVs and their AC units.

Look at the difference between middle America and middle Portugal.

<comment><USER32> I don't think that's true. The midwest was buying trucks long before manufacturing left for China.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The bill gives more authority to the Departments of Homeland Security...

Yeah. Right, no more jurisdiction to DHS on labor matters.

<comment><USER35> US Citizenship and Immigration is part of DHS.

[https://www.uscis.gov/](https://www.uscis.gov/)</comment></comment>


Moore's Law and the Origin of Life - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/view/513781/moores-law-and-the-origin-of-life/ <comment><USER2> Where are the error bars?

Fish, worm, and mammals are all eukaryotes. There's no way the 'Eukaryotes' spot can be so small.

To figure out it out, you have to read the paper it cites, which is by one of the co-authors, at [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1526419/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1526419/) .

The smallest known genomes for a given class were used as a proxy for the putative ancestral genome.

But what's lovely about the publication is _you get to see the reviewers comments_.

First reviewer: " I think that the approach used in this work provides no support for an early date of life's origin."

Second reviewer: "This paper is an example of how not to analyze data."

Third reviewer: " I do not see any striking arguments for panspermy in this work ... Third and most important, all this is not relevant to Author's own argument: the genome to discuss is not minimal one, but that of LUCA (last universal common ancestor)."</comment>


Ask HN: Review my startup: clubcompy.com - <AUTHOR>

ClubCompy is a hosted programming environment designed to introduce children to computers and programming.  We've built a language reminiscent of '80s BASIC and Logo in HTML 5 and JavaScript so that the only requirement for use is a modern web browser.<p>We believe that a quarterly newsletter with lessons and printed listings will appeal to our target audience.  The site is free to use, but only subscribers get server-side storage. <comment><USER2> A really neat idea and something I think could be beneficial for kids. I don't know what else has been done in this area, but I remember cutting my teeth on Visual Basic when I was about 12, and I am grateful for the shallow learning curve it had.

The example programs on the homepage are cool and illustrate the power of the language, but why can't you view the source code of them?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for commenting. We've discussed showing off the source code of the example programs up, but we haven't had time yet.</comment></comment>


Can The Y Combinator Idea Turn Into A Movement? - <AUTHOR> http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2008/04/can-the-y-combi.html

<comment><USER2> Will proliferating seed companies start looking like micro sub-prime mortgage traders? They operate on the similar assumptions: pooling small, high-risk investments hoping that these individual bets are unrelated, thus driving down the variance when bundled together. This is probably only true for the seed company that gets to cherry pick first, which seems to be YC as of now. Assuming an initial chance of success of 1/100 for the groups that are selected by YC, the chance that every single one from a group of 100 fails is about .36. That means that on an investment of about 1.5 million dollars (100 * 15,000) they have a 64 percent chance of a success, which I loosely define as a big acquisition or buyout. Also, YC companies seems to prop each other up and drive up success rates through intelligent nurturing and beneficial network effects. I'd guess that the payout probabilities are much higher over a three-four year period.

Now I am highly skeptical that the same math extends to other seed companies. Do they get applicants of the same caliber when there are so many second tier seed companies to choose from for a prospective applicant? People are willing to uproot their youthful lives and move for YC, but will they do the same for Techstars or LaunchBox? Probably not, at least not for 15,000 dollars and little else. If I throw in the assumption of a power-law distribution for startups, the quality goes downhill rather rapidly. And additionally, if YC happens to be decently good at identifying truly promising candidates and taking them all into their fold as they claim to, it the median success probability for the rest is going to be rather low. Assuming an order of magnitude drop-off, that gives an payout probability of .09 ( 1-(1-1/1000)^100 if they are operating on same scales as used for YC). The number of seed companies sprouting is surely going to be limited by such math...

<comment><USER3> >Will proliferating seed companies start looking like micro sub-prime mortgage traders?

I question the analogy. Seed funding might become a fad investment, but it will surely be less volatile than the subprime mortgage sector. Subprime mortgage originators and buyers backed their assets (the mortgages) by a large amount of debt. So, if their assumptions were only a small bit off (say defaults were 5.0% instead of 4.0%) the debt holders could demand a large amount of new collateral, more than the companies had on hand, forcing them into bankruptcy.

Most venture funds have little or no debt. If they overestimate their return by 25%, that means that they will earn 25% less than expected. They will not, however, go bankrupt.

<comment><USER2> You are right. I don't mean to say they run the risk of bankruptcy. The amounts invested are only in the millions here (seed companies). However, the rationale that led a lot of risk assessors to view the bundling and securitization process of sub-prime loans as meaningful is what I find to be parallel.

You are also right that VCs and their investors are sensible as of now. It boggles the mind that highly leveraged companies would buy and hold on to high-risk bets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would tend to agree that YC cookie-cutter clones are probably not going to succeed, but there are probably niches that are underserved. One that immediately comes to mind, just from the various discussions here, is the "I want to found a company, but I'm not in the US, and there's no such thing as a company founder visa."

<comment><USER5> One reason Y Clone-ators may fail is lack of imagination. YC was not handed their recipe from the heavens. If these clones had any creativity, they'd be modifying the recipe to see if their ideas could make it better.

For example, why not a 4 month boot camp preceded by a 1 month crash course in business, presentation skills, etc. I'm not saying this is a better implementation, only that if the clones thought for themselves, they'd be doing more interesting things, which would tell me they were smarter and actually people I'd want to learn from. I'm afraid to take creative advice from someone whose big innovation is copying YC. I think YC's model is better, and it may be a good thing for it to spread, but none of the clones I peeked at have impressed me much so far.

<comment><USER6> Even better would be a series of two week externships that would give hackers exposure to business problems.

<comment><USER7> Really? That's what college and working a regular job is for. If you're starting a company, taking two weeks off to be exposed to the corporate world would be worse than a waste of time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm surprised that the responses here thusfar are negative. Right now there are certainly more companies being funded by later stage VCs than YC knock- offs, so there's obviously a large enough pool of companies that can make it to that next phase. But can seed groups pick them?

I'll just make up some numbers:

Let's assume that the seed investment gets diluted down to 2% before an exit, and let's assume a buyout of $5 million. If we pretend that the only costs of running a seed firm are the investments, with seed investments of $15k, that means one successful at that level would cover 13 startups.

YC seems to be shooting for successful exits of 1/3 of their startups. If a group emulating could even do a quarter as well as YC hopes, then they'd come out ok (using my pretend numbers).

<comment><USER9> 13 x $15K is $180K; 2% of 5 Million is 100K this is 6.6X If YC only had 1/3 exit they would earn 2.2X which is surely less than their total cost per investment

YC looks more like a heavyweight advisor or individual angel than a seed fund in terms of the size of their equity stake.

<comment><USER8> Oops, I accidentally messed up things by a factor of two. Reworking, this means that a YC clone would need to do half as well as YC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Movements require charismatic leaders. You can duplicate the $$$, you can duplicate the choice of companies, but can you lead them?

<comment><USER11> PG as "Dear Leader" ?:-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Comment that turned into a blog post:

[http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/articles/can-ycombinator- be...](http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/articles/can-ycombinator-be-beaten-at- its-own-game/)

</comment><comment><USER13> His blog is itself an example of the small-neuron phenomenon. If you're running the noscript firefox extension you see there are 26 sites trying to run JavaScript on just this one page.

</comment><comment><USER14> That would require at least 3 people to walk in, sing a bar of "Alice's Restaurant" and walk out.

</comment><comment><USER15> great comments. can disqus get these comments into the comment thread on my blog where I posted this question? i love that you are all discussing this and that there are 22 comments here. but i got 34 comments on this post on my blog. it seems that we'd all be better served if there was one thread with 56 comments.

</comment><comment><USER16> The hard part is not gathering the money, but knowing who to back. That's why there are not a million successful Y-Combinators.

OTOH it is probably possible to figure out how PG and company are judging the people and ideas, and duplicate the methodology.

The world doesn't need a bunch of bad YC clones, but it sure could use a few more good ones. :-)

<comment><USER3> Paul Graham backs companies that fit into the Paul Graham philosophy. This probably causes YCombinator to miss the majority of possibly profitable investments. I am not criticizing YC here, they are only looking for a few dozen startups each year so it is fine if they miss most of the good ones. However, there is room for several YC clones, perhaps run by other successful founders, that invest with a different worldview than Paul Graham.

<comment><USER17> If there is not room for a far bigger number of YC clones or angels similarly then this entire method of growing companies is doomed.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you get feedback for your product? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> You might also find these posts useful:

<http://swombat.com/2011/2/21/getting-feedback-on-prototype>

[http://swombat.com/2011/2/22/iqbal-gandham- generating-b2b-an...](http://swombat.com/2011/2/22/iqbal-gandham- generating-b2b-and-b2c-leads-systematically)

[http://swombat.com/2011/2/9/user-activity-streams-and- cohort...](http://swombat.com/2011/2/9/user-activity-streams-and-cohort- metrics)

<http://swombat.com/2011/2/8/how-to-get-your-first-1000-users>

<http://swombat.com/2011/1/3/my-first-100-sales-microbusiness>

<http://swombat.com/2010/12/23/test-your-startup-ideas>

<http://swombat.com/2010/12/20/how-to-validate-a-startup-idea>

[http://swombat.com/2010/12/18/how-to-invalidate-your- startup...](http://swombat.com/2010/12/18/how-to-invalidate-your-startup-idea)

These should provide some starting points about getting users, getting feedback from them, getting sales from them, etc!

Oh, and how could I forget:

[http://swombat.com/2011/1/13/how-to-get-your-startup-on- hack...](http://swombat.com/2011/1/13/how-to-get-your-startup-on-hacker-news)

</comment><comment><USER3> By showing it to people, and asking for feedback, I guess? ;-)

More seriously, if you already have it on a URL, post it here. If not, put it on a URL and post. I'm sure in addition to getting answers to your question, you'll get direct feedback from here too. :-)

You might also find this thread useful: Ask HN: Obtaining initial users for a startup

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2239281>

Edit: I'm assuming you're at a startup/early stage. What I'm wondering though, is why such a question from someone with your Karma!

<comment><USER4> As someone with not such a Karma rating yet, I find it difficult to get feedback from HN. You only show up for 30 minutes up to two hours (depends on when you post) on the new posts list and then you vanish forever. You should not repost, obviously, so you can't do much to get your project back on HN for a while. Of course, if you know the right people, they write a blog post about you, which brings you back on HN and you'll be overwhelmed with feedback, but this is rather the exception than the rule.

Generally, it is really hard to get people to send you feedback, especially if your project/startup/tool is intended for not tech-savvy users. There will be some users giving you feedback all the time (powerusers/early adopters) and you should stay in contact even if you don't have something new at the moment

What I found to be useful is displaying a "1 minute of your time to improve the product"-form on the (in this case) applications home page, where every user will go. It is important to add a "no, I don't want to do this"-option, because you don't want to nag your users with a always displaying form-link. Don't do popups, too, they are irritating. Just a small but visible link with a do or don't option and if the user don't want to do it, don't force them again. On my last project, I got almost 20% of the user base to fill out the form this way, which I think is a really strong base for analysing and improving your application/startup/tool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> We have a feedback javascript (from feedbackify) tab on every web page and every mail (or receipt)we send has feedback buttons.

We also call customers whenever we have a good excuse (new features etc) (www.yreceipts.com)

</comment><comment><USER6> I personally email every user who uses my apps. Probably 2% response rate but feedback is feedback

</comment><comment><USER7> Anyone have experience using both Feedbackify and Uservoice? Any preference?

<comment><USER8> another one to look at is <http://getsatisfaction.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> <http://feedbackroulette.com></comment>