Show HN: JuryNow – Get an anonymous instant verdict from 12 real people
76 comments
·April 20, 2025p_ing
For Jury, I would give a "skip question" option. I found one relating to Christianity that I had _no_ idea what the "correct" answer would be based on the two options.
I thought clicking "Ask a new question" then going right back into Jury Duty would give me a new question, but I landed on the same one.
I think the asker providing the two valid responses is flawed. It doesn't allow the "jury" to draw their own conclusion, or provides leading answers (one about "is it rude" to eat by themselves when they're socially exhausted in a work context -- one is "yes they would be offended", the other "no they won't be" -- well, they certainly may be but it is your right to eat alone, so the answer could have been "they may, but you need to take care of yourself").
Nevermark
Skipping unanswerable questions would be good for everyone. Any answer would be misleading.
But answer choices should not be qualified by anything, because that systematically creates unanswerable regions.
There should be Context and Question, narrowed down any way the questioner wants. Then just “Yes” or “No” without qualification.
That is what a jury does.
Or: allow answer qualifications, followed by an automatic “None of the above”.
Anyone getting a lot of the latter is getting accurate feedback that the choices they posted were too narrow.
Without either fix, the basic logic of the utility will often be broken. Maybe both? Allow questions to be yes/no, or n choices with NOTA.
ensignavenger
Even one of the poster's sample question, the one about the brothers third wedding, is one I would not want to answer with a simple yes/no.
shermantanktop
Definitely not answerable. Not without knowing whether it’s a cash bar or an open bar.
_JoRo
2nd this. Already getting weirdos posting pictures of two children and asking "this" or "this"...
SoftTalker
This is why we can’t have nice things
rsyring
Agreed. There are some questions with answers, neither of which I want to support by selecting.
Might also report skip rate to question asker.
Udo
Yes, skip would be good, but I'd also advocate an option like "I reject the premise of the question".
In legal contexts yes-or-no answers can work because the case can in theory be boiled down to guilty or not. If there is any flaw with the case, the answer should be not guilty.
But let's take the "do I have a moral duty to..." questions used as examples here for contrast. I'd argue you never had a moral duty to attend your sibling's wedding to begin with. But because the question was asked with a weird modifier like "even if it's their 3rd wedding", any answer you give will be inadequate and will just serve to reinforce the flawed premise. Skipping is not enough in my opinion, because even if communicated to the question asker, it doesn't make it clear whether there as an issue on the answerer's side ("I don't know" / "don't feel qualified") or with the question itself.
sieabahlpark
[dead]
O1111OOO
Interesting, fun. Suggestion:
I really miss not seeing the results.
After answering several questions, I really wanted to see what the final jury decision was. I saw a question from a father asking about leaving his assets to his children. I would want to know what the other 11 random people selected (for various reasons).
Without this feature, I think I might start to lose interest because it'll start to feel like I'm clicking into the empty, voiceless void.
rovr138
Feels like a test you can't ace or fail. If we don't care, no reason to not pick the first option to get to your answers.
sudahtigabulan
> diverse panel of 12 real people of all ages, far removed from your peer group, around the world who will be able to give you an instant decision on your question 24/7. No commentary, just a verdict between two choices
If the userbase becomes equally-ish distributed around the world, for many questions, this wouldn't be very useful.
Especially when you only get a yes/no answer. People can give you the same answer for opposite reasons.
Should I invite 400 people to my wedding?
12xNo
1 from countries where this is too many, 11 from countries where this is too little.
(and it depends on who is up, timezones and all)
You were hoping for a No, because you can't afford 400 guests, and now you think the world agrees with you. Wrong.
With a well-crafted question, this can be mitigated. But I doubt the average user will be willing to put the effort.
nujabe
Bingo. Further, there are some questions which I don’t the opinions of people from particular countries. If I want opinions to a some moral dilemma, I would probably be inclined to go against the verdict if all or most of the jurors happened to come from Israeli’s.
mcherm
I'm using Firefox on Android. For me, it showed a question and two answers, but all attempts to select an answer failed.
jmpavlec
Similar experience on Chrome (Android). Just sits there after making a choice. Is it overloaded?
pclark
Same on iPhone Safari
Eddy_Viscosity2
Me too using chrome.
xivzgrev
I'm using Chrome on macbook and had same experience
drekipus
Same, chrome on Android as well
feraldidactic
Would love to be able to offer a nuanced answer, you could still give the questioner 12 answers from people who accepted/responded to framing.
I’d also like to see such responses.
I’d also like to skip.
I’d also like to see my past questions and results, and results for at least questions I recently responded to.
bb88
The big problem is kinda the same as what happens in push polls -- in that they ask misleading or suggestive questions trying to boil the issue down to a good and bad answer.
The reality for many of these questions is pretty complex.
I'm not saying it's not worthwhile, but I'm saying forcing users to choose on some topics aren't black and white.
It's maybe worthwhile getting information on things like people who aren't knowledgeable, people who don't care or have no preference, or people who don't want to answer because the answers are skewed towards one side.
exsomet
I think you’re correct in that lots of things aren’t black and white, but the reverse is also true. Lots of arguments end up being over-litigated when a black and white answer (even if imperfect) will suffice.
As with most things like this, you get out what you put in. Ask a biased question, and get a biased answer. At some point, the responsibility has to lie with the user that if they want something like this to be interesting and unbiased, they need to think about ways to use it to accomplish that.
sieabahlpark
[dead]
daniel_iversen
I did a few and would almost not want to respond with boolean answers unless I could provide some commentary (which the recipient could choose to read or not).
thayne
To be fair, from what I understand, in the US judicial system at least, a jury can't provide commentary. Or ask questions.
Whether or not that is a good system is another question.
1659447091
First congrats on launching, from personal experience that's the hard part.
Are there filters or monitoring for the more violent or maleficent types of things that people have a habit of gravitating towards? Depending on the number of people online and the balance, I could easily see groups jumping on and choosing the negative or harmful choice for lolz
sarah-brussels
Hello there! Thanks so much for trying it! Indeed, there is a filter to weed out any hate speech, self harm content, there is also a feature for jurors to report comments, and there is the User Agreement! But indeed, this was a big worry for me and put me off trying for a long time!
bagels
It's really unsatisfying as a 'juror' to not see the 'verdict'.
It's not objective, because the questions are biased.
It's really just an (I assume) real-time online opinion poll with a low sample size.
After asking a question, I was 'juror' for the same question approximately 10 times in a row.
delichon
Look, this is good entertainment, you should own up to that and enough with the noble purpose stuff:
> I built JuryNow because I wanted to create a truly objective place to get outside opinions that were not from my peer group, but from 12 people in 12 different countries, different ages, professions, cultures, a truly diverse global objective jury with no algorithms.
You don't collect demographics, and couldn't verify them anyway, so this game doesn't give insight into those dynamics. And the result is not more objective than a social media consensus.
That doesn't mean it isn't fun and even maybe useful in collecting one's thoughts, so go with that.
jowea
Yeah this sounds like making a webgame out of /r/AITA
primitivesuave
I actually saw this in your previous HN post and tried it out - it's a great improvement to replace the email/password with a captcha, since I anyways filled out a fake email and I'm sure most people would do the same. Super cool concept, congratulations on launching it!
grapesodaaaaa
I asked “ Toddlers should be allowed to be licensed to operate a motor vehicle.” with yes/no answers.
It errors out with “ Please moderate the content of your question before submitting it.”
mulmen
Maybe because it relates to children? This is a website that accepts input from the public.
I rephrased the question as:
> Should driving licenses be available regardless of age?
> A: Yes, anyone who can pass the test can drive.
> B: No, only adults who pass a test should drive.
Option B won 10-2.
After 16 years, I have just launched my game JuryNow. Imagine having a truly diverse panel of 12 real people of all ages, far removed from your peer group, around the world who will be able to give you an instant decision on your question 24/7. No commentary, just a verdict between two choices. You can ask a moral dilemma, or a fashion dilemma (you can upload 2 images), you can use JuryNow to give you an independent perspective on a family argument, or a workplace problem, or even a trivial thought. You can also ask a mini political poll and receive global verdict in real time.
It’s anonymous, fast (under 3 minutes), and...when there are more than 13 people playing simultaneously, completely AI-free.
How do you pay for this priceless fun? With JuryDuty. While you wait 3 minutes for your verdict, You answer other people’s questions. There is no commentary, just a binary choice.
You can ask things like:
“Do I have a moral duty to go to my brother’s third wedding? We have no parents?”
“Do you feel guilty when you kill mosquitoes?”
"Should I take away my mother's car keys? She is 84 and had two near misses this month."
As a 58F, I built JuryNow because I wanted to create a truly objective place to get outside opinions that were not from my peer group, but from 12 people in 12 different countries, different ages, professions, cultures, a truly diverse global objective jury with no algorithms.
Would love your feedback! It’s totally free, no sign-up needed for a first play. https://jurynow.app/
if there are fewer than 13 people playing (and it only just launched last week and that was just on Reddit!) then a popup will appear saying your verdict is simulated by AI. But this is just a TEMPORARY feature with the MVP. As soon as there are regular players, it will be permanently dismantled and we will celebrate the power of collective human intelligence!