Small story:

I was investigating wufoo.com one day, and was mightily impressed - so impressed that I sent them an email nitpicking some extremely minor issues (the first and only email of its kind that I've sent).

The grammar issue I raised was fixed almost immediately, and fixed by completely replacing the problem word and all of its various forms.

The searchbox alignment was changed perhaps a week or two later, probably with an unreasonable effort to benefit ratio (good old HTML/CSS issues).

Their response showed me that the wufoo guys care, and that they know how to debug problems instead of just superficially fixing symptoms.

That search bar still has some minor flaws though. I get a hand pointer over the search icon, but clicking it does not illicit a response. And I also get a hand pointer over the right corner of the search bar, which is a little weird (clicking there also does nothing).

I don't know exactly what it is, but there is something about that website that resonates with me (I actually have never used the service), and it drives me to pipe up with crap like this, which is not typical of me.

Hmm...well that should be fixed. Those hover areas are leftover properties we used in the Entry Manager and since we just reused a good number of the XHTML/CSS when we redid the documentation, we forgot that the extra effects and activated areas weren't needed there. Thanks again for the detailed attention!

Did they ever respond to your email? When I sent them nitpicks their reply was all snippy about it.

Hey Aaron, for that, I'm going to have to take the blame and offer my apologies. (I think I apologized before, but here it is again). Your nitpicks were actually really great feedback and addressed the kind of design details that make all the difference between what's good enough and what's great in an interface. Unfortunately, they were 1) covering stuff that was near the bottom of our priority stack because we were just trying to launch at that point 2) I was still an asshole during that period and hadn't fully learned the value of users yet: http://particletree.com/notebook/reflections-of-an-interface...

I offer no excuses. Thanks again for taking the time to help us then and I'm sorry that I left a bad impression for my reactions.

You are awesome.

Seriously. Users are fucking awesome, but people like you, people who understand users and are completely transparent about their process are even more awesome.

Thank you for the inspiration.

Just a hunch, but they probably ignored it because of who it was sent from.

I'm kidding, seriously.

I chuckled.

Yep, the response was good natured and curt. I certainly felt... uh... upset? at first, but that quickly faded when I realised the message was quite practical.

The final talk grew out of that idea. I didn't end up mentioning the Wufoos by name, but they are extraordinarily dedicated to their users.

I can't imagine a better answer.

The good news: I feel better already because I have always been extraordinarily dedicated to my users.

The not so good news: I'm so dedicated that I'm often afraid to release soon enough. Just last week, a customer accused me of being a perfectionist and said, "Just give me what you've got." Ewww. I have to find a happy medium.

Some years ago I was trying to deliver a product in the face of rampant perfectionism - the kind that never delivers - when, so the story goes, I said "There is a level of mediocrity people are willing at accept, and I'm all for delivering it."

I cringe every time it's quoted back to me - usually after I've heaped scorn on some prematurely released product. I was trying to make the point, of course, that after six months in the bat cave our product would benefit from some customers more than the customers would benefit from our product. (It's now #1 in its market thanks to those same customers).

Knowing when to pull the trigger is an art. There really is a level of "mediocrity" where no amount of spit and polish trumps getting a product in front of customers.

I saw this in the wufoo FAQ:

We’ve done everything possible to ensure the safe keeping of your data and the data you collect. Our servers are located at 365 Main and backed up onsite and offsite–every 12 hours in Toronto and every 24 hours in Virginia.

i'm using opera 9.26 with automatic character encoding on.

(sorry, this may not be the best place to submit such feedback...)

What makes you think he changed his mind about what to talk about at Startup School?

My guess is because your competitor having "benevolence" does not exclude you from having it. It is not a scarce resource that only n parties can use.

And yet, none of their competitors has as much benevolence as Wufoo (certainly not Google). The Wufoos are on a mission from God, and you really don't want to get in the way of people like that (you can see what happened to all the cops chasing Jake and Elwood...those guys never stood a chance). Wufoo is kinda like that.

It seems pretty obvious to me that pg's talk was exactly about what makes Wufoo such a terror. They have a near infinite supply of morale built right into how they approach their business...they can't fail because it would never cross their mind to accept failure because what they're doing is The Right Thing--as long as they do The Right Thing, they have succeeded. And as long as they have that approach and you don't, you wouldn't want to try to beat them in their space. And, of course, having "beat Wufoo" as one of your guiding principles you would have already lost.

pg may be getting a bit zen on us, but I think there's a real kernel of truth in there.

"It seems pretty obvious to me that pg's talk was exactly about what makes Wufoo such a terror."

It wasn't so obvious to me. Now it is. Thank you!

I have some reservations about your claim that "having "beat Wufoo" as one of your guiding principles you would have already lost.". Namely, it scares me that we're so willing to just assign the high ground to one group, and say that they trying to dislodge them is not "being good".

I realize that what you are saying is that your goal should be to "be good", and that if your goal is to beat Wufoo, then your goal isn't to be good. But that's a slippery slope. My goal might be to make the best product in this market, and that implicitly means that I want to beat Wufoo by the simple virtue of being better than them.

(Disclaimer: I have nothing against Wufoo. I haven't really used their product either).

"Namely, it scares me that we're so willing to just assign the high ground to one group, and say that they trying to dislodge them is not "being good"."

You've misinterpreted my intent (and are easily scared). If you knew me, and the way I talk about competitors of Virtualmin and VM2 (who, generally, are not doing good by their users), you'd know that I don't have a problem with taking aim at competitors. But, it's an issue of mindset and morale, which is a core part of pg's talk. If you decided you have to "beat Wufoo" in order to be successful, every day that you aren't beating Wufoo is a day that you've lost. As another speaker at Startup School pointed out (in a different context, but it applies here) losing all the time really sucks. So, if you're thinking "I've gotta beat Wufoo" and Wufoo is thinking "I've gotta make an awesome product for my customers" you will lose and by losing you will find you feel more and more drained every day. While your competitor that is thinking "I made my product more awesome today and users loved it!" is going to feel great. They will come back the next day ready to do it again, while you'll come back the next day thinking, "This sucks."

That's all I'm saying. No one has a monopoly on "good". But, if a market already has a product that clearly meets the definition, it might be wise to pick another market. Nobody is saying you can't possibly beat Wufoo...but, pg said he wouldn't want to try. You, or anyone else, are welcome to go against that advice, but you may find it's a harder row to hoe than you expected.

I think we agree more than we disagree, and I'm sorry for doing a bad job of getting my point across.

I agree that if you set out to "beat Wufoo", then you are not going about it the right way, and you'll probably lose. What I worry about is that if you set out to "make the best product for your customers", and you don't believe Wufoo is it, then in some way, you have an implicit goal of "beating Wufoo", but one which I find acceptable.

I also entirely agree that a market which has a "good" product (both in terms of the product, and in terms of the intentions) might be the wrong market to enter (Google and search is also an example). However, I think we both agree that it is a market that you CAN enter, and you CAN win, even though it might be harder.

Hopefully that makes more sense.

I am reminded of the poem by Matsuo Bashou -

古人の跡を求めず、

古人の求めたるの所を求めよ。

kojin no ato wo motomezu,

kojin no motometaru no tokoro wo motome yo

Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the wise;

seek what they sought.

(aside: argh! typsetting poetry with the HN markup facilities available is frustrating.)

It may seem like a strange analogy, but this sounds alot like Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. He "freed the slaves" to take the moral high ground. Any chance the Confederacy had to gain a European ally was blown away in an instant. How could they side with the enemy of freedom?

Same idea with a vendor who is beloved by its customers. His enemy is their enemy.