Hacker News Reader

Comment by lanewinfield | Hacker News Reader

Nice site. Likely very few people will care this much, but with a couple of very easy changes you would make this feel a LOT less vibe coded.

The giveaways:

* Instrument Sans (your logo)

* Highlighted period in your logo

* Highlighted italicized text in your header text (also in Instrument Sans)

* Short punchy AI-written sentences. Just merge that into one sentence! ("Enter any place on Earth to see every satellite that passed over it in the last week and the pictures they took there.")

* The flashing orange square in the upper right (every single vibe coded site has a circular or square version of the LIVE icon)

And then, just one more reason to switch from Instrument Sans: the massive kerning gap between "W" and "atched" in the logotype.

I'm being picky, of course. Nice job!

View on HN

> Highlighted period in your logo

When the page is first loading and the logo is shown in the middle of the screen, the period is pulsating. I think the intention is that the colored period is to evoke the look of a glowing red LED light from a camera that is recording. It fits with the name “watched”.

Now whether it looks better putting it as a period at the end of the word in the logo like that, instead of as a solid circle ahead of the word, is perhaps debatable.

Maybe. Might just be an unfortunate coincidence that claude loves to put a pulsating circle on every website it makes.

Why try to be deceptive and specifically make changes to hide it though. If it's made with AI it's made with AI, some people won't care, some will.

I guess it'll be like using Comic Sans... a tell of laziness, or even awareness.

Kinda strange take to me. Is it deceptive to edit something to improve it? Is there some self-deprecating element to this, "I used AI so I'll wear crappy copy as a badge of shame"?

No, it's not deceptive to edit something to improve it. If you edit something specifically to get rid of the "giveaways" for vibe coding, as mentioned above, that's more along the lines of deceptive.

> "I used AI so I'll wear crappy copy as a badge of shame"

If that's your view on stuff made with AI, maybe don't use AI to make stuff. Generating it and pretending it isn't generated doesn't mean it's not generated. That's more of a question of how you yourself value something made by AI, not necessarily how others perceive it. I did in no way imply that using AI for something is shameful, I merely said that specifically taking measures to cover it up is deceptive. I don't see how that's a strange take.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com