I've thought more and more on the no-refund stance, and I believe you are correct -- I'll add a clause allowing them, perhaps up to 15 days from listing close (45 from listing purchase/approval).<p>As for pricing, you're correct again -- $75 (or anything, really) is a great deal to ask for a site with no track record.  Even your "tens of hits" is overestimating at the moment.... I don't, however, want to set a low price and then raise it -- that's always irked me in any situation.  Perhaps making new listings free during the beta test (a month or two)?<p>I'll certainly reconsider requiring users to register.  I DO want employers to feel safe in that they won't see ALL of the spam that comes with an open site, but maybe an option to only allow members to apply?  Tier II jobs will retain the requirement, as they're for premium members exclusively (they're screened by the staff and pay a fee), but Tier I would be fine.<p>For your other comments:
- I'll make the delineation between employer and provider (or at least the definition or nomenclature of a provider) more clear).<p>- Glad the UI grew on you -- it did me, too! :)<p>- All jobs posted are screened for compliance with our Acceptable Use standards (basically nothing offensive or harmful).  All PREMIUM members will be screened for access to the premium features (before being asked to pay, of course) -- basically, we'll check portfolios and references.<p>- The problem we're trying to solve is too high a cost and/or too little value (for both employers AND providers).  A listing can run, as you mentioned, $200-$300 dollars (which I believe is a bit excessive).  The employer can be inundated with crap applicants -- we allow peer reviews and screen premium members.  The providers can be inundated with jobs with minuscule pay -- we have minimum budgets.<p>I reckon I oughta make all of that more clear.... :)<p>Thank you for your detailed analysis, particularly having worked where you have.  I truly appreciate it!<p>- John