A successful campaign will bring about a new evolution of this application and some exposure on HN could be decisive in gaining some momentum. If it's not a cheek, a few up votes and perhaps a few social shares would be hugely valued.
Any pointers for further promotion or suggestions for adjustments to the pitch would also be greatly appreciated.
Big changes made since first shown to HN about a year ago in an early beta stage. Hopefully ready for some proper promotion (one of the biggest hurdles).
Features include browser-side resizing, which makes it fast to upload pics straight from phones, and a fully-responsive layout (as standard as that sounds in 2016). Trying to bridge the gap between desktop and mobile.
Feedback from HN users, particularly on the UI, but also on the general direction, would be valuable, as would advice on effective (and cheap) promotion.
A few social shares would be excellent, and if we can gather a few more early users, even while there may still be a bug or two to work out, that'd be even better.
Itsosticky was designed from the outset to be an image sharing service with community potential, contrasted with image hosting, it's a service that facilitates quick sharing of an image or screenshot with a friend or group.
When used for its intended purpose, direct sharing, as opposed to free hosting for hotlinking, there are features that make it worthwhile sharing an Itsosticky resource URI rather than a direct link to an image file. For example, zoom capabilities, that some people may find superior to those available natively in a web browser, albums and easy social sharing links, and not least, fast uploads from phones without the need for a dedicated app.
All users are invited to publish their images to the gallery for greater social participation or exhibition.
None of what you've said here makes you stand out from your biggest problem: Imgur. None of those features are groundbreaking or even original. And how are you going to monetize? Running this service won't be free.
Imgur isn't a problem, and this shouldn't be a problem for Imgur. There are similarities, but that's mostly due to necessity in good UI. If people prefer Imgur, they should certainly use Imgur.
I can't comment on what might be right or wrong with other sites, not in the capacity of someone promoting a competing product.
Itsosticky is fast (server hardware permitting), modern, has no advertising at all at the moment, and no third-party sharing widgets.
I can't discuss plans for monetisation - there are none as yet.
There are several things that make this different to other image sharing services. Itsosticky will quickly and automatically rescale images that are above a certain size threshold, with auto-orientation of JPEGs uploaded from phones. The layout is fully responsive, allowing for consistent URIs when shared across devices. It's light weight, with no advertising technologies.
Many of the images currently displayed in the gallery are simply placeholders dropped onto the site by helpful beta users, and there are surely bugs to address here or there, but by and large, Itsosticky is ready for use.
Thanks for taking a look. Feedback from mobile devices would be particularly valuable.
Please upvote if you think this service is worthwhile and deserves to go somewhere.
How do you plan on enforcing the no-NSFW policy? That seems close to impossible pre-monetization unless you spent most of that year training a neural network.
Could always use https://www.projectoxford.ai or something like it. I know Google just came out with an API for generating text descriptions of images. Perhaps if scanned images passed through this api were tagged with certain words, the images could be marked for moderation and not shown until approved.
Working to demonstrate the advantages in scaling down oversized fonts to offset transitions from local fonts to web fonts. A cap on the transfer speed offers some interesting insight.
View statistics for Font Combiner following some exposure on HN show upwards of 70% Linux and Mac. This probably isn't representative of the audience most fonts in use would be presented to. If you're interested in the differences, do try a test in Windows on a browser without DirectWrite.
