Thanks for that. I tried to submit my startups, but I get "You need permission. This form can only be viewed by users in the owner's organisation.", unfortunately.
I've been wanting to build something like this, different vertical. Would you be willing to share the source, techniques, or write a tutorial? Just trying to learn and would love the help. Thanks!
I'll push the source code to a public repository on GitHub in the next few days and we can take it from there. I'll also add a link to the repo. in the site's header so that anyone can find the code.
One thing I thought was interesting as I was clicking around was how so many of the sites have "converged" to a single UI design style, e.g. full screen photo background overlaid with a short blurb about the site, and a big slightly rounded-rectangular "start" button (sometimes some text fields), then as you scroll down you usually get a couple horizontally laid out big icons, etc. etc.
Of course, this isn't surprising, but it just becomes so apparent as you click refresh. Just thought it was interesting, that's all.
Same here. A generator was posted a few days ago and it took me a couple of startups to realize this was not a (far) better generator. Great initiative though.
Should mint.com (acquired by Intuit five years ago after raising thirty million in five rounds) or redfin.com (ten years old, and has raised a hundred million dollars in seven rounds) really be considered startups?
+1. I wonder if making the work of curating the list of startups driven by a community, like in Wikipedia, would be more beneficial? It would also work better if start-ups are defined as part of the guideline.
There is really no dejure definition of a startup as it is. Not to mention that the site doesn't even give its own definition of what qualifies to be listed on the site.
I think a reasonable point at which to consider startups just normal companies is upon IPO or acquisition. That's certainly the end goal for most startups, and when the structure really changes.
I think IPO or acquisition is to narrow criteria. Not all companies go public. You won't call behemoths like Koch Industries, Ernst & Young, Dell or Heinz startups, yet they are not public.
What's wrong with Google docs for submitting? By using it he was probably able to whip this site up in a few hours instead of a day or two. Why waste time building something you won't end up pursuing?
Very addictive and a neat way to see what is going on out there with a quick browse.
I'd suggest more modern look and feel for the top bar, maybe something like a black bkgd with opacity? Currently it pulls the feel of the site down a bit.
45 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 110 ms ] threadI used it with my (fake) EdTEch Startup Generator[1], to check if my fake startup is actually a real startup. I was surprised how often it happens.
[1] http://eduwampus.herokuapp.com *
* May load a little slow, it's on Heroku free tier.
EDIT: Noticed that you can click the #<number>
1)The top bar can be improved.
2) Hackerrank constantly refreshes for me. Some sites do not load properly.
3) Lots of startups appear again, if a startup site has been shown can it be removed from the queque?
One thing I thought was interesting as I was clicking around was how so many of the sites have "converged" to a single UI design style, e.g. full screen photo background overlaid with a short blurb about the site, and a big slightly rounded-rectangular "start" button (sometimes some text fields), then as you scroll down you usually get a couple horizontally laid out big icons, etc. etc.
Of course, this isn't surprising, but it just becomes so apparent as you click refresh. Just thought it was interesting, that's all.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickjacking
In other cases, the default is to not let a page mix origins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-origin_policy#Cross-Origin...
Should mint.com (acquired by Intuit five years ago after raising thirty million in five rounds) or redfin.com (ten years old, and has raised a hundred million dollars in seven rounds) really be considered startups?
There is really no dejure definition of a startup as it is. Not to mention that the site doesn't even give its own definition of what qualifies to be listed on the site.
Scratch that, google docs for submittal :) seriously?! Even graduates from devbootcamp's can do 100 times better and we should give them some slack.
I'd suggest more modern look and feel for the top bar, maybe something like a black bkgd with opacity? Currently it pulls the feel of the site down a bit.