I am sure we can debate all day the merits of different styles of testing, but Ryan (the blogger and co-founder, for those who don't want to read the article), really should think about adding some testing for features like this. To say things like "this [bug] was embarrassing, especially when that [user] was a potential investor" and then also make comments like "we had just redone our website, and hadn't done too much testing" or "I could have written a script for this [testing], but that itself would have taken up precious time", is, frankly, silly. I'm glad actual users were able to give you the data to debug and have a potentially mediocre experience in the mean time. If you are a start up and expect potential investors to give you their money to fund your dream a) don't come off sounding lazy about quality, and b) make a well tested, high quality product. Testing will make your product better, waste a lot less of your own time as a developer, and win you investors for your idea.
I tried that too and got the same result. I'm outside the US, if this isn't your intended audience then make it clear you're serving US(/Canada) only users/customers.
Edit: Ok...so I discover that you're limited to DC metro and a couple of VA counties at the very bottom of the page. Perhaps your address selector should be a bit more clever and save folks some time.
Gotta love that professional log message, "This shit ran". In addition to several errors. The onclick function doesn't work at all, except in browsers where window.event is a thing. Guess what browser does that? Internet Explorer.
Mmm, the new Jesse Swanson, "My Dedicated Lawn Genius" is a screenshot from a Stock Video (not sure which one, she has many videos that are very similar):
