Have there been studies on “time on phones” or “time on devices” rather than social media specifically? Be interested to know of anything solid. My gut says this is where the issue lies rather than with social media specifically, but I’d be interested in any evidence for / against.
This looks really great and I'll definitely be giving it a go. Like others I really don't understand why it hasn't got more traction (if, when I try it, it does what it says on the tin!). I suspect the comments about the homepage aesthetic probably couple with the fact the dev is a dev and not a marketing person!
I'm a partial nerd and probably exactly your audience - I run a small tech agency, familiar enough with PHP to break things but not a proper dev, work on all range of stuff like SEO / content / accessibility / etc... ie - this is exactly the kind of tool I'm looking for to do site audits, content stuff, etc. Normally I find myself reaching for yet another license of Screaming Frog's SEO Spider [0] and find myself groaning at having to pay another £240 p/a - but do it anyway...
Anyway - at first attempt with this I get a "won't install" warning on my Mac. And it's sufficiently scary for someone like me (techy enough to be aware of all the potential things that can go wrong with just installing any old software from the web but not skilled enough to look at the source code and figure out if you're legit or doing something awful to me...) - that I just can't really justify installing it.
Your message about it being notarized and potentially ok to find on the Mac App Store is reassuring at first, but dated 2023.
(I know I have a slight double standard here in that I install Screaming Frog but I've used it for years and know it, whereas you feel fairly unknown...)
So - just some feedback there, I think I'm exactly your audience, and I'd pay for this, given some further signals that it's legit.
So even if you try to install the latest version 1.0.8 on macOS, it tells you that it won't install it? I'm not a macOS user, but for this project I bought a MacBook M1 and built the app and tested it on it. Thanks to the notarization, the application was installed without any problems. But maybe I missed something. But there will probably be a problem if you report it. By the way, did you download the correct version for your Mac? For M1/M2/M3 processors you need to download the arm64 version, for Macs with an Intel processor you need to download the x64 version.
PS: publishing the application to the AppStore didn't seem easy and unfortunately I didn't have time to go through the whole process. I will try to get it done by the end of the year.
FWIW "Paying for Chrome extension is unheard of" - um, no.
This is a really great extension, and it does stuff that isn't just "learn how to use dev tools". Maybe take a look before being so dismissive.
A large part of HN is about recognising great software and giving devs the recognition (and financial compensation) that they deserve. Not sure how this is any different.
Can you list 3 extensions you purchased before? Not the services you use and install their plugins later such as SimilarWeb or Ahrefs. They already have services outside of the chrome extension and extension is just adds value to their service.
I don’t know where you’re going with this. The fact is that some extensions are paid and they have value. So why not pay the developer for the value they’ve added?
I am convinced you are advertising, and your attitude is similar to his (vulgar, aggressive, untamed). Which makes me think you are the same person with a second account. Reporting.
I have tried to find something and I havent found what I wanted.
I should be able to hook a drive into the SCSI port and exchange samples
but I do want to be able to use the native features, so I was hoping
for a virtua control panel (mirror of what the screen should show)
I presented a wireframe to a curator at The Science Museum once years ago - even after lots of "please bear in mind this is just a prototype" type disclaimers, his first response was "surely it'll have more colour and pictures than this?".
DC was massive in museums in the 90s. I think there are still remnant uses today - stuff like schema is a good reason for thinking about on-page metadata and dc was a part of that.
I was involved with a gov / lottery funded series of projects called “New Opportunities Fund” [0] which mandated DC markup. The exciting idea for us at the time was that we’d be able to create simple cross-site searchable assets. So we (I was at The Science Museum at the time) could create our project with 30k museum records in it, the NHM could make theirs and then ultimately someone could make a “portal” (ah, the 90s phrases are flooding back…) where users could search across all the NOF funded sites.
To the best of my knowledge the portal part was never made - we all did the dc bit but nothing global emerged from NOF.
There is (to this day) a conversation about how to allow this sort of interop across museum data. On the one side are SemWeb types, on the other lightweight microformat types. I’m massively over simplifying - but this is sort of how it goes.
I’ve always been fairly much in the latter camp. DC and microformats are incredibly crude - when you say an object has a “date” for example it clearly needs qualifying. Date it was made? Found? Used? Bought? Etc… - BUT to me it’s better to have this crude description than the alternative which is some kind of deeply complex (and thus never to be agreed / implemented across tens/hundreds/thousands of museums) sort of “perfect” standard.
Of course nowadays much of this is made irrelevant by good search, and the way the majority of people search the web. A general audience doesn’t actually want to search for all paintings made by x artist on y date - and when they do they’re content (for good or bad) to settle with Google results. And I guess AI will help. Maybe.
There are still a lot of data interop projects in museums and cultural heritage - stuff like the Museums Data Service [1] is brand new, TANC [2] has been going a while - and many more out there.
Perhaps we're seeing a resurgence of interesting in good metadata as a result of the decline in quality of search?
> A general audience doesn’t actually want to search for all paintings made by x artist on y date
This a common fate of cataloging systems:
they are made by archivists,
for archivists.
Most people aren't archivists,
they are looking for something in the context of their particular use for the information.
Sönke Ahrens in his book "How to Take Smart Notes" says,
"Do they wonder where to store a note or how to retrieve it? The archivist asks: Which keyword is the most fitting? A writer asks: In which circumstances will I want to stumble upon this note, even if I forget about it? It is a crucial difference."
reply