The article is well-written and presents some interesting insight and seemingly useful advice. But there are 2 major red flags here:
There are 2 fawning comments here on HN by newly created accounts. Maybe the green color of new accounts can be used to detect astroturfing. I have to assume this is on the front page in part due to such tactics (I don't know the exact HN algorithms however, so could be wrong--but the perception remains). Why risk any chance of organic interest by poisoning the well like that?
Especially since the article just leads me to uncover more shady behavior. The Medium article reveals and then glosses over a sudden halving of monthly revenue. Why write an article about $50K monthly instead of $100K? The link goes to another self-promoting "transparency" report has a link to a WP ticket [1] where anyone can read that the author refused for over a year to comply with WP theme rules. And these rules were specifically in areas to reduce self-promotion and one could characterize the theme's behavior as spammy. And this lack of rules compliance created extra work for WP in enforcing those rules (in other words copy-cats).
So in the end, what sounds like a nice and encouraging story now seems to be more of a whitewashing. This is sad because the ideas of WP theme development and marketplace sound interesting and perhaps rewarding as a small business opportunity, but now I tend to think success is due to spamminess, bending/breaking of rules, and astroturfing stories (and maybe reviews) on relevant sites.
In this light, the business model outlined and promoted here--buying and improving existing niche products--seems more like adding spamminess for profit. In fact, I am now questioning what creative and useful code did this company actually create (since they talked about buying every single one of their profitable products), as opposed to taking products that can't stand out in a crowded market and adding spammy and sticky features to them to game those marketplaces in ways that are not beneficial to consumers.
> Why risk any chance of organic interest by poisoning the well like that?
You're proclaiming guilt as a matter-of-fact without any actual proof of it. You set up your own opinion and then matched a conclusion of fraud to it, seemingly without a second thought.
If I were to apply your framing approach to your own post, it comes across as though you're trying to talk down the article and injure their reputation by implying they're doing something wrong while possessing nothing more than an opinion. That's a leap too far, throwing around such accusations without solidly supporting them is inappropriate.
Not sure what to say about first accusation, I haven't personally asked anybody to leave 'good looking' comments here, sure I bragged that we got on HN front-page, but I saw that is a flag/hide button that you can use in case you don't find this useful.
For next next part, the goal here wasn't to brag about how much money we made or we make, it was a story that I was encouraged to post initially on IndieHackers, I don't think the fact that we now make 50k instead of 100k makes the article less interesting, I would say the otherwise, sure if it would have been a gossip article, it might have worked better with a higher number.
Now the suspension story is too specific and complex to argue with you same for regarding the business model and innovation that we bring, I am happy that we have been able to bring amazing free products in front of that many people, while finding a business model to fund the initiative, same for managing to build team of amazing people.
In the end the truth is always somewhere in between, but there cannot be an "in between" without the other end of the perception spectrum clearly laid out like this. One of the reasons I'm on HN is to see these comments upvoted as they should be. The author clearly chose their words carefully and is not malicious or vindictive. And the perception is absolutely true.
If the original author saw this as a golden opportunity to explain themselves all would be well, granted they are not (too) guilty of anything aforementioned. That would go to show how constructive and valuable such feedback truly is.
Those that love your product will pay you. Those that challenge your product will make your product better.
In a strange way, the article is still interesting. While reading I thought, aha, to earn $50000 a month with WordPress themes you have to do a couple of shady things (I also found the ticket you mentioned). The possible astroturfing just fits in the picture... Isn't that called a "growth hack" nowadays?
On the another note, I appreciate that you took the time to leave your thoughts here, I find it useful since I mostly got positive but not many constructive messages.
I am not saying this is constructive, however it helps me realising how other people are thinking about our journey, even if some of them don't say it loud.
There are 2 fawning comments here on HN by newly created accounts. Maybe the green color of new accounts can be used to detect astroturfing. I have to assume this is on the front page in part due to such tactics (I don't know the exact HN algorithms however, so could be wrong--but the perception remains). Why risk any chance of organic interest by poisoning the well like that?
Especially since the article just leads me to uncover more shady behavior. The Medium article reveals and then glosses over a sudden halving of monthly revenue. Why write an article about $50K monthly instead of $100K? The link goes to another self-promoting "transparency" report has a link to a WP ticket [1] where anyone can read that the author refused for over a year to comply with WP theme rules. And these rules were specifically in areas to reduce self-promotion and one could characterize the theme's behavior as spammy. And this lack of rules compliance created extra work for WP in enforcing those rules (in other words copy-cats).
So in the end, what sounds like a nice and encouraging story now seems to be more of a whitewashing. This is sad because the ideas of WP theme development and marketplace sound interesting and perhaps rewarding as a small business opportunity, but now I tend to think success is due to spamminess, bending/breaking of rules, and astroturfing stories (and maybe reviews) on relevant sites.
In this light, the business model outlined and promoted here--buying and improving existing niche products--seems more like adding spamminess for profit. In fact, I am now questioning what creative and useful code did this company actually create (since they talked about buying every single one of their profitable products), as opposed to taking products that can't stand out in a crowded market and adding spammy and sticky features to them to game those marketplaces in ways that are not beneficial to consumers.
[1] https://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/35906