[maresca]

That's exactly what I did. I created bots for every single state. I wanted to scrape as much data as possible so I went for all the data available that every state had. Writing each bot took only a day or two, but running them took much longer. I also did all of this in my spare time on top of a full time job. If I worked on it full time, I probably could have done it in 6 months.

[utnick]

I think your site needs some work, both the design and the chicken and egg participation problem. However obviously there is some value in having scrapers for every state legislature. Maybe you should pivot and become an api provider for this info?

[maresca]

Good point. I will definitely be providing an API at some point, and will also open source everything after some independent code reviews. The design was an afterthought. I spent so long gathering data that that was my main focus. Now that I am done, I can really focus on marketing and design.

[jcol]

Every successful website starts with a focus area and it grows outward. You simply can't target every legislative policy in every state without overwhelming your visitors or pointing out the fact that your website isn't active.

A site like yours, if done properly, could go viral in certain online communities, but not in its current state.

If I was in your shoes, I would pony up a few thousand dollars and get it done right by someone who has some experience building websites that receive traction.

[jhowell]

What would you have this "someone" do? Are there people you can go to and say, here's a couple of grand, build me a site with traction?

[jcol]

Building a website that has the potential to gain traction requires understanding how and why your users are going to use your site. Sure he can A/B test it himself, but at this rate, he's going to spend another 3 years figuring it out and by then he will have burned out and lost motivation.

People that want to visit a website that lets you vote on legislative policies and then talk about it, would likely be of above average intelligence. The fact that he has a comment system and nothing but a few "I agree" type posts and submitted it to HN for feedback is a clear sign that he doesn't understand the mechanics of building a website that people want to visit.

I'm not sure why everyone these days thinks they can just throw up a website and people will magically appear and start using it-- it's not that easy!

[maresca]

This is only a MVP. Traction or not, I will still be working on it in another 3 years because I feel that Americans' voices in politics fall on deaf ears, and this is too important to give up on.

Targeting a market of only people of above average intelligence is wrong and undemocratic. The purpose of the site is so that EVERY American can understand the legislation that governs them. Based on the current political setting, this site is exactly what America needs. Sure it may be rough around the edges, but it will get there.

But damn me for trying, right?

[jcol]

What if you only have 30 users after putting 3-4 years into this? You don't know burn-out till you've experienced it.

You can't target everyone because everyone doesn't care. You can't target everyone because you don't have the budget to support it. You can't target everyone because you will never reach the critical mass needed to sustain it.

Unintelligent people usually avoid politics because it is a highly complex subject. Your website is not perfect for them because your website doesn't simplify anything for them. Getting the average Joe to care about legislative policies will require you to understand why they avoid it in the first place.

See all of these things you aren't taking into consideration? Someone with experience can save you the trouble of having to figure them out on your own.

All I'm saying is that if you find someone to help you polish this up, you can avoid a lot of common mistakes and save yourself a lot of time and frustration.

[kshcho]

for this to be remotely useful and interesting, you do need some critical mass of people interested in discussing these topics. i'm sure you've thought of these already, but if i were you'd, i'd ping every legislator i could about the site and what it's trying to offer - potentially get them to start dialogues with their constituents through it or something. i'd also reach out interest and lobbying groups(on both sides - e.g., repeal Prop X, support Prop Y) - it's all about just building the presence. one argument against those is that you'd want to get "real people" discussing the issues, but i think you'd at least get some impassioned perspectives from these people, who are the ones that arguably care the most - from there, you can hope it builds on itself in facilitating a dialogue.

to the earlier comments, the site probably needs a design refresh and some tangible, clear focus where visitors can engage (not currently clear)

[systemtrigger]

The guy said he spent 3 years on it _while holding a full time job_. That's not equivalent to "spending 3 years on it." He's trying to make a forum for congressional bills and his v1 looks good. Instead of criticizing him for releasing a less-than-optimal service, how about channelling that energy into a mockup or something tangibly constructive?