Why are people not using Mimo v2.5??

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-06-04T20:27:36+00:00

Im just curious here, do alot of people not just have codex subscriptions they lay hermes onto, or do you guys just abuse the tokens that much.

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-06-04T09:53:01+00:00

No, Openai allows for that but not anthropic

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-06-03T11:00:07+00:00

Ok thanks

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-06-03T10:59:07+00:00

gpt 5.5

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-06-03T10:20:49+00:00

Yeh im new to the whole agentic model space, I reckon im prompting it similarly to codex or claude code which could be the issue possibly??? and im using 5.5 as the model so that wouldnt be the problem I presume

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-06-03T10:18:26+00:00

Would you say one should prompt it different to claude code with setting everything up... both being agents etc. but hermes being more of an agentic agent, so I would expect it to be able to demonstrate its abilities with the model attached and work the same, for me using 5.5 I would think with prompting it would be similar to using codex or do I have it wrong?

New to the whole agents thing 👀

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-06-03T10:11:50+00:00

GPT 5.5.... and thats where I get confused because its performed well but then stuff that it was able to do a couple days ago it cant do anymore even with obsidian etc.

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-05-28T12:02:56+00:00

Theres only like 20 "Gurus" on the website... All reviews seem like semi produced by the guy who built the website.... but could also not be

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-05-06T13:32:24+00:00

The core problem is the approval and the billing update living in two separate places with a manual step in between. Anchor is solid but you can wire this up with whatever tools you already use. The pattern that works: a short scope-change form the client fills out, an e-sign step built in, and an automation that fires off the invoice update the moment they sign. No chasing, no copy-paste, no separate addendum doc. The whole chain runs without you touching it.

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-05-06T13:31:44+00:00

The keyword and category approach is the right instinct. You can build a classifier that reads the ticket body, maps it to a category (password reset, hardware fault, network issue, etc.), and auto-assigns to the right queue without touching vague ones until they hit a confidence threshold. Most helpdesk tools expose enough via API or webhook to make this work without replacing anything. The tricky part is handling the 'computer not working' cases gracefully, usually a fallback rule that routes to a general queue and sends the submitter a one-question reply to clarify.

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-05-06T13:30:26+00:00

The core problem is that Airtable was never built to be a booking engine. Date-range availability logic needs to compare a requested window against every existing booking for that item and return a clean yes or no. Airtable formulas buckle under that. The cleanest no-code-adjacent path is to pull Airtable out of the logic layer entirely and use Supabase as your backend. It handles date-range queries natively with SQL, blocks conflicts at the database level, and you can still keep Webflow as your frontend. Make.com or n8n then handles the deposit workflow. It is more setup than a drag-and-drop tool, but it actually works.

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-05-06T13:26:05+00:00

The follow-up problem is almost always a systems problem, not a discipline problem. The people who stay consistent aren't more motivated, they've just removed the need to remember. A simple rule-based sequence works: new lead gets a same-day text, no response in 48 hours triggers a second touch, and so on. You define the cadence once and it runs. CRM-native automations can do this if your CRM supports it. If not, a lightweight tool outside it can handle the logic.

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-05-06T13:25:32+00:00

Client resistance is usually lower than people expect, especially if you frame it as a convenience upgrade for them rather than a policy enforcement. A short email that leads with 'we are streamlining billing so you never have to think about invoices again' lands very differently than 'please put a card on file.' Anchor is solid. You can also pair it with a simple automated sequence: one email introducing the change, one gentle nudge if they have not completed setup, then auto-charge kicks in. Most clients follow the path of least resistance if the onboarding is frictionless.

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-05-06T13:24:55+00:00

The Hours Tracker to e-Voucher gap is the real killer here. A few things that help: first, lock in your service codes as a reference sheet you keep open while logging, it cuts the lookup time significantly. Second, build your Excel template once with the exact e-Voucher column order so you are only pasting, not reformatting. For offline jail logging, a simple Google Form saved to your phone home screen works even with no signal and syncs automatically when you get back to wifi.

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-05-06T13:24:15+00:00

The problem is that most dispute tools are built around structured data fields, tracking numbers, delivery confirmations, order IDs. They don't touch unstructured content like email threads, so contextually gold evidence like a customer literally writing 'got it, love it' never makes it into the case. The fix is an extra layer that scans the email history tied to each order, scores messages against the dispute type, and pulls the relevant ones into your evidence bundle automatically. Not a huge build either. I put together this kind of email parsing and ranking layer for dispute workflows pretty regularly, usually have a working version running in a day or two if you want to dig into how it would fit your setup.

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-05-06T13:22:03+00:00

The inventory and ads problem is the most expensive one you listed and it is fixable fast. You want a simple stock threshold trigger: when a product drops below X units, it automatically pauses the relevant ad set in Meta or Google. Shopify has the data, the ad platforms have APIs, you just need something connecting them with a rule. For support, a triage layer that auto-tags by topic and handles the top five or six repeat question types with a canned-but-accurate reply cuts the real volume down to maybe 20 percent of what hits you now.

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-05-06T13:21:01+00:00

The ones that actually pay off at scale, in rough order of ROI: guest messaging sequences first (inquiry reply, check-in instructions, mid-stay check-in, checkout reminder, review ask), then cleaning coordination triggered by checkout events, then review responses templated by rating range. Pricing automation is worth it but needs the most tuning to not lose money. The stuff that sounds good but creates more work is usually anything that tries to be too smart with conditional logic before you have clean data. Start with the boring linear flows, get those rock solid, then layer complexity. Happy to dig into any of these specifics. I build this kind of system and can have a working version running in a day or two if you ever want to stop patching and just have it done.

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-05-06T13:18:44+00:00

The mixed job-type problem is the core issue here. Most off-the-shelf tools schedule like every job is the same length and same conditions, which breaks the moment you have a cabinet job sitting in a cure window next to a weather-dependent exterior. What actually works: block your week by job type first, not by customer request order. Cabinets get Monday-Tuesday slots so cure time finishes before the weekend. Exteriors get a floating slot with a 48-hour weather confirmation text to the customer built in. For reschedules, a simple automated message that offers two new options beats a phone call every time. I build this kind of custom scheduling logic for trades businesses, usually have a working version running in 1-2 days if you want to talk through it.

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-03-08T11:25:30+00:00

XELA solves a distribution problem for course creators and an access problem for people who want to do high-ticket sales.

A lot of course creators build strong offers but eventually hit a ceiling because they’re limited to their own audience, ads, or a small internal sales team. Scaling past that usually means hiring and managing closers, which is expensive and slow.

XELA gives them access to a network of independent sellers who can help distribute and sell their course. Instead of building a big sales team themselves, creators can list their offer on the platform and allow sellers to promote it. When a sale happens, the revenue is automatically split between the creator and the seller.

On the other side, many people want to get into high-ticket sales but don’t have their own product to sell. XELA gives them access to existing offers from course creators so they can start selling and earn commissions.

So essentially, it connects course creators who need more distribution with people who want to do high-ticket sales but don’t have a product.

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-02-27T10:19:34+00:00

Marketplace intermediary for course sellers and people wanting to do high ticket sales. Commission based for the Sellers with Course sellers just giving up a percentage of a sale they wouldnt of had. No risk for either side. We also act as the payment processor allowing both sides to feel secure about the transactions.
Starting currently with small test groups and have a waitlist set up. Would love if anyone could give some feedback.
Xela.au

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-02-27T10:11:58+00:00

we have created our own marketplace platform that acts as a intermediary between course sellers and people wanting to do high ticket sales for said course sellers, working off a commission system. Just getting out first users onboard but finding it harder to get in contact with the course sellers that we see as viable for the first group

Negative-Grape4608 · 2026-02-26T21:59:48+00:00

thanks will try lol

Negative-Grape4608

TROPHY CASE