Original Summary

Got the order backwards and only worked that out after launch. The premise came from being annoyed. Every AI tool comparison I read is either a sponsored slot in a trench coat or a listicle someone generated in an afternoon, so I wanted one number per tool and nothing else: the percentage of members who would recommend it. One vote each. A vote from someone who left a verified review of that tool counts three times a vote from someone who just turned up, because demonstrated use was the only thing I could think of that deserved any weight at all. Not follower count. Not account age. Then I spent months on plumbing nobody will ever look at. A tool needs three reviews before any score appears at all, ten before it can show up in rankings, and anything under fifty reviews carries a provisional label so a lucky handful of votes cannot crown something. Founders can reply to criticism and cannot remove it. Ads sit in labeled slots that never touch a score or a comparison, and every advertiser is listed publicly. The open data export ships with no user ids and no review text in it. All of that works. There are 69 tools sitting in the directory. Not one of them has a score, because nobody has reviewed anything, me included. So what I actually built is a very careful referee for a game with no players. The mechanism was the interesting problem, which is precisely why I did it first and precisely why it was the wrong thing to do first. Getting one person to write two honest paragraphs about a tool they already open every day is the entire business, and I do not have that yet. Disclosure since the rule asks for it: TrustRank is mine. For anyone who has launched something that is worthless until other people put content in it, what actually got the first batch in? Not the growth-hack version. The boring true one.   submitted by   /u/southwest69 [link]   [comments]

  • 情报分类：商业与市场研究
  • 分类依据：内容涉及商业、投资或市场动态
  • 信息来源：Reddit · SaaS
  • 发布时间：2026/9/14 21:49:49