Fair comparison, and I can see why you’d make it from the 100,000,000 target.

The idea isn’t really to recreate the Million Dollar Homepage though — there are no pixels or advertising spaces being sold. Each person contributes one photo and one message, with one qualifying contribution per person/account, and the collection is meant to be browsed as people, photographs and messages rather than as ad inventory.

The scaling/UX side matters to me precisely because the collection itself is the product rather than a one-off page that eventually fills up.

That said, your reaction is useful. If your immediate impression was “another Million Dollar Homepage”, then I may not be communicating the distinction clearly enough. Out of curiosity, was that impression mainly from the 100,000,000 concept itself, or from how the homepage explains it?

Totally fair — and that’s exactly the kind of reaction I’m interested in hearing.

The $1 is deliberately part of the model rather than the site being a free photo-upload platform: one person, one photo, one message, one contribution to the collection. But if $1 is enough to make you immediately say “no”, that’s useful feedback.

Out of curiosity, is it mainly that you wouldn’t pay to upload something anywhere, or that the project doesn’t currently give you enough reason to want to be part of it?