[Boldewyn]

Sorry in advance for the rather harsh feedback, that follows. It’s basically my unfiltered impression when I visited your site before reading your introduction comment here.

This is one of the occasions, when I love the German “every website needs a ‘Who’s responsible for this?’ page” law (a.k.a. “Impressumspflicht”). Why should I trust your specific selection of quotes and their interpretation? You even don’t trust your visitors with a “Who are we?” section. For all I know, this could be a Chinese or Russian troll factory outlet sale.

For this to work (for me, at least) you need to work _way_ more on the site’s transparency than a more or less default privacy disclaimer and an e-mail input form: Who am I, what criteria and sources are used for the quotes, how are they categorized, what do I do to prevent bias... The technology may as well be sound and state-of-the-art, but if I don’t trust the website, I won’t sign up to anything.

[atestu]

Hi -- thanks for the candid feedback, that's why I'm posting on HN :)

I think that's a good point, I will add an "about" page. I was thinking of adding a "how it works" page as well, I'll work on that.

[young_greedo]

In case anyone else is curious...

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressumspflicht

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/23307/to-whom-does-t...

[friendlybus]

I don't know if it's a transparency issue rather than an editorial perspective. I don't really know or care who gave me my CNN/Fox/BBC/ITV news, but I care that it has a consistent and trustworthy editorial perspective, that may be carried over multiple people.

I guess transparency and a greater overarching perspective both work.

[web007]

Does the commentator matter if the quotes are sourced?

[nikeee]

Yes, because it may show the commentators intention and may offer some context of the interpretation.

Also, a lot of people don't read the source. Or know the context.