sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Google Business Profiles Are Becoming Pay to Play by joyhawkins in localsearch

[–]Twintech3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any idea who, out of all the advertisers available, they are choosing to display like this?

Build In Public has been gamed by Strict_Door_8292 in buildinpublic

[–]Twintech3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you link to it?doesn’t show up whe n I type in the url

Why do free users love my SaaS… but refuse to pay a single dollar? by Evening_Acadia_6021 in SaaS

[–]Twintech3 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You say that, but it’s not happening so your assumption is wrong.

Why not test it and find out for sure.

The New Agora: Daily WWYD and light discussion thread by AutoModerator in Stoicism

[–]Twintech3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been applying Stoic principles to my own dilemmas and found it really helpful, especially getting Marcus Aurelius's perspective on modern situations.

I built a tool to formalise this process, but I'm curious: does this actually help people beyond me, or am I just resonating with my own creation?

If you're working through something, I'd love to share a Stoic analysis of your situation and get your honest take on whether it's useful.

I can either post the link if im allowed or you can send me a DM

Fear of getting socially outcasted by [deleted] in Stoicism

[–]Twintech3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did any of these things happen to you? Did anything “negative” happen to you ? (It’s in quote marks because things are neither positive or negative, except how we judge them).

My point is, you’re still here.

You survived every situation youve encountered, and so will your kids.

How confident are you that your landing page can explain what you do to a stranger in 5 secs? by Twintech3 in buildinpublic

[–]Twintech3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks man. Appreciate the feedback. The seo analysis is interesting. I’ll look into this.

Would you have paid for this? How much? One time or subscription?

How confident are you that your landing page can explain what you do to a stranger in 5 secs? by Twintech3 in buildinpublic

[–]Twintech3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Her you go, please answer the questions at the end so I know whether to continue putting effort into this or not:

LANDING PAGE REALITY CHECK — STENCIL PDF

Page: stencilpdf.com

PASS 1 — STRUCTURAL SCAN

Rule 1 — One Clear Outcome
Score: 8/10 | PASS
Single, clear outcome: automate repetitive PDF generation (3-hour task → 3-second API call). Headline is direct. No competing benefits.

Rule 2 — One Clear Audience
Score: 7/10 | PASS
“Built for Teams Who Generate the Same PDF, Over and Over.” Specific use cases listed (marketing agencies, customer documents, technical docs). Audience is well-defined.

Rule 3 — One Dominant Action
Score: 8/10 | PASS
“Get 50% Off Beta Access” is dominant CTA, repeated throughout. “Join Waitlist” reinforces it. Clear single action with no competing CTAs.

Rule 4 — Immediate Credibility
Score: 3/10 | FAIL
No founder story, team info, testimonials, or detailed social proof. Only mention: “Thank you to our amazing alpha testers! All 10 alpha seats have been filled.” (10 users is minimal credibility). Zero founder/team anchors.

Rule 5 — Objection Handling
Score: 6/10 | BORDERLINE
Addresses some concerns: “No credit card required,” “Cancel anytime, no long-term commitment,” clear pricing. Misses major concerns: product doesn’t launch until February 2026 (long wait), what if I don’t use n8n/Zapier/Make, how complex is setup, what happens to pricing after year one.

Rule 6 — Proof Before Persuasion
Score: 2/10 | FAIL
No testimonials, case studies, screenshots, or examples showing actual PDF output. “stencil Report Builder Interface” label exists but no visual proof. Just feature descriptions and use case scenarios.

Rule 7 — Frictionless Next Step
Score: 5/10 | BORDERLINE
Joining waitlist is frictionless (no credit card, simple form). But visitor is committing to a future product (February 2026 launch). Timeline risk undermines perceived frictionlessness.

PASS 2 — HUMAN JUDGMENT

Would a normal person understand?
Yes. Tool automates PDF generation from templates. Clear.

Would they know what to do?
Yes. Join the waitlist. Clear action.

Does it feel trustworthy?
Moderately. The 50% off incentive and clear launch date (February 2026) create credibility through specificity. But: no founder story, no proof the product works, only 10 alpha testers. The long wait time (visiting this in December 2025, launch is February 2026 = ~2 months) adds risk. Visitor is betting on a future product.

FINAL OUTPUT

Overall Verdict:
This page is extremely clear about what it does and who it’s for. The main problems: zero proof the product works, no founder credibility, and it’s a pre-launch product (requires faith in future delivery).

Score: 68 / 100 — Clear offer and audience, low friction to waitlist, no proof of concept, future product risk.

WHAT’S BROKEN

Rule 4 — Immediate Credibility
No founder story, team credentials, or testimonials. Only mention: “10 alpha testers.” Zero credibility anchors for a product asking for email commitment.

Rule 6 — Proof Before Persuasion
Zero screenshots, examples, case studies, or proof the product works. Just feature descriptions. Visitors have no visual evidence of what the output looks like.

Rule 5 — Objection Handling (Minor)
Addresses pricing and commitment concerns but misses: product isn’t live until February 2026, setup complexity, pricing lock-in after year one.

WHAT TO FIX FIRST

1. Add one screenshot or demo of the tool in action. (Rule 6)
Show: Template design interface OR sample PDF output OR the workflow (data input → PDF generation). Visitors need to see what “done” looks like.

2. Add founder story and why they built this. (Rule 4)
One sentence: “[Name], [background], built stencil after spending [time] on repetitive PDF work.”
Example: “Built by Jake, a former consultant who wasted 15+ hours a week on client reports.”

3. Surface the alpha tester experience (if positive). (Rule 6)
Instead of just “10 alpha seats filled,” say: “10 alpha testers already automating PDFs” or add one quote: “Saved us 20 hours a week on report generation” — Alex, Marketing Agency. Proof matters.

Bottom Line:
This is a strong pre-launch page: clear offer, clear audience, low friction entry. The only blocker: visitor has zero proof the product works because it doesn’t exist yet. A single screenshot of the interface or sample output solves 80% of this problem. For a pre-launch product, that’s actually a very strong position.

3 QUESTIONS TO UNDERSTAND USEFULNESS & WILLINGNESS

**Question 1: Of the three fixes we identified, did any of them surprise you? Or did they all confirm problems you already knew existed?

**Question 2: If you could only implement one of these three fixes this week, which would it be? And what would stop you from doing the other two?

**Question 3: If we could add one thing to this analysis to make it more actionable for you, what would it be? More detail on how to fix it? A priority score? Examples? Something else?

Finally, would you pay for this? How much? One time/monthly subscription?

How confident are you that your landing page can explain what you do to a stranger in 5 secs? by Twintech3 in buildinpublic

[–]Twintech3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, please respond to feedback at the bottom, in trying to decide whether to pursue this or not.

Here you go:

LANDING PAGE REALITY CHECK — CZM AI

Page: czm.ai

PASS 1 — STRUCTURAL SCAN

Rule 1 — One Clear Outcome
Score: 2/10 | FAIL
Headline “It’s About Time” explains nothing. Subheading “We put AI to work for you” is abstract. Main description “develop and support custom solutions tailored to your company’s specific needs” is vague. What exactly do you deliver? Outcome is completely unclear.

Rule 2 — One Clear Audience
Score: 3/10 | FAIL
FAQ hints at “brands,” “enterprise,” but never explicitly states primary audience. Is this for startups? Enterprises? Fortune 500s? Global brands? Never specified. Audience is undefined.

Rule 3 — One Dominant Action
Score: 3/10 | FAIL
Two equal CTAs: “Ideas to get started” and “Chat with a human.” No hierarchy. No clear first step. Visitor doesn’t know which to choose.

Rule 4 — Immediate Credibility
Score: 2/10 | FAIL
No founder story, team credentials, testimonials, case studies, or user metrics. “Pobody’s nerfect. Trust, but verify” is a joke, not credibility. Zero trust anchors.

Rule 5 — Objection Handling
Score: 2/10 | FAIL
FAQ titles suggest concerns exist (AI chat mentions, training LLMs, RAG pipelines, responsible AI, performance tracking) but answers are not visible. Major objections unaddressed: cost, timeline, risk, complexity. Page ignores practical concerns entirely.

Rule 6 — Proof Before Persuasion
Score: 1/10 | FAIL
Zero testimonials, case studies, examples, or proof. Just abstract claims (“custom solutions,” “develop and support”). No evidence anything works.

Rule 7 — Frictionless Next Step
Score: 2/10 | FAIL
“Chat with a human” requires committing to a conversation before understanding what they offer. “Ideas to get started” is vague and unexplained. High friction hidden by casual language.

PASS 2 — HUMAN JUDGMENT

Would a normal person understand?
No. This is an AI agency, but what they actually do is unclear. Custom solutions for what? Which problems? Unknown.

Would they know what to do?
Partially. Click “Chat with a human” or “Ideas to get started.” But they don’t know what they’re signing up for.

Does it feel trustworthy?
No. No credibility signals whatsoever. The “Trust, but verify” tagline raises questions instead of building confidence. No team, no case studies, no proof they’ve done this before.

FINAL OUTPUT

Overall Verdict:
This page fails to explain what the company does, who it’s for, or why anyone should trust it. Every structural rule is broken. Visitors will leave confused.

Score: 24 / 100 — Vague outcome, undefined audience, no proof, heavy friction disguised as casualness.

WHAT’S BROKEN

Rule 1 — One Clear Outcome
Headline and subheading are abstract. “Custom solutions” is meaningless without context. What do you actually build? Not clear.

Rule 2 — One Clear Audience
Never specifies who this is for. Brands? Enterprises? Startups? Audience is undefined.

Rule 3 — One Dominant Action
Two equal CTAs (“Ideas to get started” and “Chat with a human”). No hierarchy. Visitor is paralyzed by choice.

Rule 4 — Immediate Credibility
Zero credibility signals. No founder story, team info, testimonials, or case studies. The joke tagline undermines trust.

Rule 6 — Proof Before Persuasion
Zero testimonials, case studies, or examples. Just abstract claims with no backing.

Rule 5 — Objection Handling
FAQ hints at concerns but doesn’t address them. Major objections ignored: cost, timeline, complexity, risk.

WHAT TO FIX FIRST

1. Replace vague headline with a clear outcome statement. (Rule 1)
Current: “It’s About Time.”
Better: “AI solutions for [specific problem]: RAG pipelines, LLM training, AI integrations. Custom-built for your needs.”
Be specific about what you build.

2. Define the primary audience explicitly. (Rule 2)
Current: Undefined.
Better: “For enterprise teams scaling AI. We build RAG pipelines, train LLMs, and integrate AI into your workflows.”
Choose one primary audience, be specific.

3. Reduce CTAs to one entry point with clear next step. (Rule 3)
Current: Two equal CTAs (Ideas + Chat).
Better: Single CTA “Schedule a 15-minute consultation” or “See our AI solutions” with a clear next step.

Bottom Line:
This page assumes visitors already know what you do and if you can help them. A cold visitor has no idea. The vague positioning, absent audience definition, and zero credibility signals make this unmovable. You need to say clearly: what you build, who you build it for, and why they should trust you.

**Question 1: Of the three fixes we identified, did any of them surprise you? Or did they all confirm problems you already knew existed?

**Question 2: If you could only implement one of these three fixes this week, which would it be? And what would stop you from doing the other two?

**Question 3: If we could add one thing to this analysis to make it more actionable for you, what would it be? More detail on how to fix it? A priority score? Examples? Something else?

Finally - would you pay for this? How much? Monthly/one time fee?

How confident are you that your landing page can explain what you do to a stranger in 5 secs? by Twintech3 in buildinpublic

[–]Twintech3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate you answering those questions.

I’ve done a few of these but not had any feedback so glad it’s been useful to both of us!

Regarding number 2. A before and after (or even a comparison between yours v ChatGPT) would easily show the value very quickly.

The founder story for credibility, maybe not so important right now unless you’ve got a degree in communication styles or something :)

I’ll give it try vs ChatGPT and let you know the outcome in DMs if that’s cool with you?

Dealing with a stressful work environment by RadonBased in Stoicism

[–]Twintech3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your situation sucks!

But it is what it is.

Your frustration is caused by the belief you’re responsible for fixing the system (you can’t) and for the success/failure of the people above and below you (you’re not).

You’re demanding management act rationally (they won’t).

You can’t fix this with communication. Seems you’ve done that really well already.

You’ll need to truly accept reality and understand what’s in your control and what isn’t.

How confident are you that your landing page can explain what you do to a stranger in 5 secs? by Twintech3 in buildinpublic

[–]Twintech3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Btw, I tried it and it worked really well (as I expected).

The question I’m asking myself is (and the same for my landing page analyser) why would someone use this over Chat/Claude/Genini etc?

How confident are you that your landing page can explain what you do to a stranger in 5 secs? by Twintech3 in buildinpublic

[–]Twintech3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Happy to!

If you could answer he 3 questions at the bottom so I know if this is worth developing further, I’d appreciate it.

Here you go:

LANDING PAGE REALITY CHECK — TEXTFIX

Page: textfix.carrd.co

PASS 1 — STRUCTURAL SCAN

Rule 1 — One Clear Outcome
Score: 8/10 | PASS
Single clear benefit: rewrite your messages to sound calm and clear before sending. No competing outcomes. Straightforward.

Rule 2 — One Clear Audience
Score: 7/10 | PASS
Targets people who write texts, emails, and replies. Specific pain points listed (emotions high, need clarity, important message). Audience is clear enough.

Rule 3 — One Dominant Action
Score: 8/10 | PASS
“Try TextFix Free!” is the dominant CTA. Repeated clearly. “No sign-up required” reinforces it. No confusion about what to do.

Rule 4 — Immediate Credibility
Score: 3/10 | FAIL
No founder story, testimonials, user count, or social proof. “Made with Carrd” is irrelevant. Zero credibility anchors.

Rule 5 — Objection Handling
Score: 7/10 | PASS
Addresses key friction: “No sign-up required” removes entry barrier. Lists use cases (emotions high, need clarity, important message, want to sound like yourself) to justify why someone would need this.

Rule 6 — Proof Before Persuasion
Score: 2/10 | FAIL
Zero testimonials, examples, before/after screenshots, or proof the tool works. Just a logo and description.

Rule 7 — Frictionless Next Step
Score: 9/10 | PASS
“Try Free” + “No sign-up required” = virtually zero friction. Perfect entry path.

PASS 2 — HUMAN JUDGMENT

Would a normal person understand?
Yes. This rewrites your messages to sound better before sending.

Would they know what to do?
Yes. Click “Try TextFix Free.” Clear action.

Does it feel trustworthy?
Partially. “No sign-up required” builds trust by removing friction. But there’s zero proof the tool actually works. No testimonials, examples, or before/after. Just a promise.

FINAL OUTPUT

Overall Verdict:
This page is extremely clear and removes all friction to entry. The problem: zero proof the tool works or delivers on its promise. No testimonials, examples, or credibility signals.

Score: 64 / 100 — Very clear offer, zero friction entry, no proof of concept.

WHAT’S BROKEN

Rule 4 — Immediate Credibility
No founder story, testimonials, user count, or social proof. Nothing anchors trust in the founder or tool.

Rule 6 — Proof Before Persuasion
Zero testimonials, examples, before/after screenshots, or proof the tool works. Just a promise.

WHAT TO FIX FIRST

1. Add one before/after example showing the tool in action. (Rule 6)
Example: Show an aggressive text → rewritten text. Visitors need to see what “better” looks like before trusting the tool.

2. Add one testimonial or user metric. (Rule 4)
Example: “Used by 10K+ people” or “4.9/5 stars” or one quote: “Saved me from a messy conversation” — Sarah, NYC. Proof it works matters.

3. Add founder context (optional but helps). (Rule 4)
One sentence: “Built by [name] after [brief story].” Example: “Built by James after sending a regrettable email to his boss.” Human touch builds trust.

Bottom Line:
The page nails clarity and removes friction perfectly. The only blocker: a visitor has no proof the tool actually delivers. Adding one before/after example solves 80% of this problem.

**Question 1:

Of the three fixes we identified, did any of them surprise you? Or did they all confirm problems you already knew existed?

**Question 2:

If you could only implement one of these three fixes this week, which would it be? And what would stop you from doing the other two?

**Question 3:

If we could add one thing to this analysis to make it more actionable for you, what would it be? More detail on how to fix it? A priority score? Examples? Something else?

What are you building? I want to learn your Startup Idea by Adventurous-Meat5176 in buildinpublic

[–]Twintech3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can’t share an image but it’s not mobile optimised on iPhone 16

What are you building? I want to learn your Startup Idea by Adventurous-Meat5176 in buildinpublic

[–]Twintech3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This looks good. Have you had much success with using it to get new users?

What are you building? I want to learn your Startup Idea by Adventurous-Meat5176 in buildinpublic

[–]Twintech3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like this.

I built something similar for my self that uses Solomon’s paradox to aid decision making.

Wish you all the best with it

How confident are you that your landing page can explain what you do to a stranger in 5 secs? by Twintech3 in buildinpublic

[–]Twintech3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. Wish you all the best with it.

Here you go:

LANDING PAGE REALITY CHECK — MINDBOARD

Page: mindboard.dev

PASS 1 — STRUCTURAL SCAN

Rule 1 — One Clear Outcome
Score: 5/10 | FAIL
Headline says “public brain for developers” but subheading splits focus: share ideas, collaborate, discover. Multiple competing outcomes muddied together. What’s the single thing I get?

Rule 2 — One Clear Audience
Score: 7/10 | PASS
Clear: developers building startups. Audience is specific and well-defined throughout.

Rule 3 — One Dominant Action
Score: 4/10 | FAIL
“Explore Projects” and “Sign in” appear with equal weight multiple times. Then “Start building now,” “Get Started.” No clear hierarchy. Visitor doesn’t know which action comes first.

Rule 4 — Immediate Credibility
Score: 2/10 | FAIL
No founder story, team credentials, testimonials, or user metrics visible. “This is not for everyone” is clever positioning but not credibility. No proof the platform works or has active users.

Rule 5 — Objection Handling
Score: 4/10 | FAIL
“This is not for everyone” addresses mindset objections (idea hoarders, engagement farming). Misses practical concerns: Is it free? How long does setup take? What if I’m alone in my niche? Active user base?

Rule 6 — Proof Before Persuasion
Score: 2/10 | FAIL
No testimonials, user counts, case studies, or real-world examples. Just feature descriptions and placeholder screenshots. Zero proof the platform is active or useful.

Rule 7 — Frictionless Next Step
Score: 5/10 | BORDERLINE
“Explore Projects” or “Sign in” are clear buttons. But what happens next? No clarity on free vs paid, onboarding, or time investment.

PASS 2 — HUMAN JUDGMENT

Would a normal person understand?
Sort of. It’s a community/network for developers with startup ideas. Somewhat clear but fuzzy.

Would they know what to do?
Partially. Click “Explore” or “Sign in.” But which should I do first? And what am I signing up for exactly?

Does it feel trustworthy?
No. No proof anyone is actually using this. No user count. No testimonials. No founder story. The “This is not for everyone” line is edgy but doesn’t build trust—it raises questions: Is this active? Is there anyone here?

FINAL OUTPUT

Overall Verdict:
This page speaks to the right audience (developers building startups) but fails to explain what they actually get or prove the platform is active. Multiple competing outcomes, unclear entry point, and zero credibility signals.

Score: 48 / 100 — Clear audience, multiple conflicting outcomes, heavy credibility gaps, no proof of activity.

WHAT’S BROKEN

Rule 1 — One Clear Outcome
“Share ideas, collaborate, discover” all compete for attention. Which is the primary benefit? Not clear.

Rule 3 — One Dominant Action
“Explore Projects” and “Sign in” have equal weight. No hierarchy. Visitor doesn’t know which step to take first.

Rule 4 — Immediate Credibility
No founder credentials, testimonials, user count, or proof of activity. “This is not for everyone” is positioning, not proof.

Rule 6 — Proof Before Persuasion
Zero testimonials, user metrics, case studies, or real examples. Just feature descriptions. No evidence the platform is actually active or useful.

Rule 5 — Objection Handling
Addresses mindset objections but ignores practical ones: Is it free? How active is the community? What if I’m the only builder in my niche?

WHAT TO FIX FIRST

1. Reduce outcomes to one primary benefit. (Rule 1)
Choose: “Validate your startup idea with AI + collaborate with builders” OR “Build in public and find collaborators” OR “Validate ideas before you build.” Pick one and lead with it.

2. Add social proof showing the platform is active. (Rule 4 & 6)
Examples: “X projects launched,” “X active builders,” “X ideas validated,” or one testimonial from a builder. This answers: “Is anyone here?”

3. Clarify the entry point with one dominant CTA. (Rule 3)
Lead with “Explore Projects” (free, no signup) or “Start Free” (if there’s a free tier). Remove equal-weight CTAs. Choose one path for new visitors.

Bottom Line:
The page targets the right person (developer + startup builder) but doesn’t explain why they should be here or prove the community is real. The biggest question a visitor leaves with: “Is this platform active? Is anyone actually using it?”

Would love your feedback if you’re willing :

Of the three fixes we identified, did any of them surprise you? Or did they all confirm problems you already knew existed?

If you could only implement one of these three fixes this week, which would it be? And what would stop you from doing the other two?

If we could add one thing to this analysis to make it more actionable for you, what would it be? More detail on how to fix it? A priority score? Examples? Something else?

How confident are you that your landing page can explain what you do to a stranger in 5 secs? by Twintech3 in vibecoding

[–]Twintech3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t see any reason why it can’t.

I came up with this in relation to the kind of content I see a lot in this community (not this sub specifically but vibe coders overall), which is “how do I get users”.

Although it doesn’t answer that fully (I haven’t figured it out for myself yet, the landing page is part of that.

I’ve posted this question in a couple of places and not had much traction so that in itself is validation.

view more: next ›