Hmm...
1. Ok i understand the usecase, but the website itself looks spooky..probably bcoz
a,Design-- the frame surrounded by so many pics
b, am just biased due to the the goth look on the front page pic..
2.spelling mistake at step 3 receiver not reciver(i recommend using a spell-checker. bad spelling raises the spooky component)
I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying, but if you're going to be a grammar/spelling nazi, you could at least take the time to format your comment in a reasonable fashion.
Typos aren't as bad as bad grammar. I can immediately correct typos in my mind as I read the text. I have to parse the sentence first to correct grammar.
Butchering of English aside, the service can't deliver unless it's human moderated which it can't be.
I don't really see how the human moderation would help. You still cannot make sure if the picture that one of the parties is trying to send is actually his/her real picture.
Comments
Hmm... 1. Ok i understand the usecase, but the website itself looks spooky..probably bcoz a,Design-- the frame surrounded by so many pics b, am just biased due to the the goth look on the front page pic.. 2.spelling mistake at step 3 receiver not reciver(i recommend using a spell-checker. bad spelling raises the spooky component)
I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying, but if you're going to be a grammar/spelling nazi, you could at least take the time to format your comment in a reasonable fashion.
Typos aren't as bad as bad grammar. I can immediately correct typos in my mind as I read the text. I have to parse the sentence first to correct grammar.
Butchering of English aside, the service can't deliver unless it's human moderated which it can't be.
I don't really see how the human moderation would help. You still cannot make sure if the picture that one of the parties is trying to send is actually his/her real picture.
Maybe also checking against a reverse image search to reject publicly available photos?