Nope@Kavinsky have you tried that yet?
no issue on our end, try with squareJust a quick heads up - I tried donating through PayPal and got a "Sorry, your payment could not be processed" message
square seemed to workno issue on our end, try with square
I'm a software developer too and the rate for 3.5 days of work doesn't seem that high to me either. Especially when an experienced dev is doing the work. I also agree that there is more work than the pure coding etc.We do development (not web though) and for 1400$ you would get one day of work from us.
And since analyzing the requirements is also work not much "actual" work will be done in a day - so I don't think 1400$ for a little feature is too much to ask.
I'm a software developer too and the rate for 3.5 days of work doesn't seem that high to me either. Especially when an experienced dev is doing the work. I also agree that there is more work than the pure coding etc.
Mind you, that is when hiring a single dev. When working with an agency, even when just one dev is coding, the rate of 1400 per day sounds totally plausible.
Crazy idea, maybe clone the site as SFW subject matter (maybe cute pet photos), and see if others will work on it?other people wont touch it because of NSFW
The way you put it sounds a little condescending and toxic, especially in case of people who include not actually knowing the specifics. And the way you make it sound does seem like they would have to reinvent the wheel, as if none of the features requested have ever been done before. Coding does work a whole lot with reference to existing code performing similar tasks, especially considering how complexity is usually divided down into smaller, simpler steps, which in turn are more applicable, in different scenarios as well. So I wouldn't call it unreasonable to presume that some of the code could be referenced from similar projects.I read various comments of people that really do not know what they are talking about. "cut and paste", "let AI do it", "easy, I made a website in 2003". Really nonsense. The request is for a personalised feature in a forum software that the dev will have to create and implement it in a way that does not slow down all the server. Fuck95-zone had to change the coding for that reason. 1400 USD is a really good price for that.
The donation link to theboard.meI would assume taking the job also has some kind of stipulation in it regarding a warranty or agreement for a certain amount of time to troubleshoot any issues that come up.
Considering we are likely not only the QA for this, but we are likely to push this code to the limit, having the original coder for the back end available for issues would be a good idea and should raise the cost some as well.
Also, @Kavinsky - can we get an update as to where we are on the donations for this?
This assumes a lot. Just because other websites have similar features means nothing. Do you have access to their code? Are you using the same webserver? Are you using the same database? Are you using the same web framework or ORM? Are you even using the same language? The only way that you can reliably replicate code from another project is if the developer, themselves, is working on an identical project using all the same components and saved all of their code from the other project (which you are not legally allowed to do as the code is the IP of the company you wrote it for, but we all do it for reference material).The way you put it sounds a little condescending and toxic, especially in case of people who include not actually knowing the specifics. And the way you make it sound does seem like they would have to reinvent the wheel, as if none of the features requested have ever been done before. Coding does work a whole lot with reference to existing code performing similar tasks, especially considering how complexity is usually divided down into smaller, simpler steps, which in turn are more applicable, in different scenarios as well. So I wouldn't call it unreasonable to presume that some of the code could be referenced from similar projects.