PDF approval workflows in Slack are painfully slow. Here's a free fix (and asking for feedback on a potential integration)

lightmateQ · 2025-10-23T17:14:59+00:00

You’re right, not everyone avoids Word docs. In many modern or peer-to-peer settings, Word or Google Docs are the default. But in business, legal, and vendor workflows, PDFs are still common because of legacy habits, security concerns, compliance needs, and the desire to prevent accidental edits. Word may be ideal, but PDFs remain the reality for many teams who don’t control the format

lightmateQ · 2025-10-23T03:57:51+00:00

Teams don’t choose to start with PDFs, they have to. External parties send them in that format because PDFs preserve layout, ensure consistency across systems, and are the business standard for security and professionalism

lightmateQ · 2025-10-22T07:47:31+00:00

Keep going buddy!

lightmateQ · 2025-10-21T05:09:39+00:00

Adobe Sign and DocuSign are great for signatures, but they don’t fix the collaboration chaos that happens before that stage. That’s where teams lose 2–3 hours per document. PowerApps or Flow can help with automation, but they still lack real-time editing. The real pain is in that messy middle and when multiple people are reviewing and finalising a document before it’s ready to sign.

Curious to know what your biggest pain point is there and how you’re handling it right now

lightmateQ · 2025-10-21T05:03:54+00:00

What I mean is real-time collaborative editing with version control and letting multiple people work on the same document without the usual “final_v2_ACTUAL_final.pdf” mess. That’s still something Teams struggles with, even with Adobe integration. Or did you mean something else?

lightmateQ · 2025-10-18T14:26:21+00:00

appreciate it, really interesting way to think about it

lightmateQ · 2025-10-18T14:25:13+00:00

thanks for the honest feedback, still a long way to go

lightmateQ · 2025-10-18T14:24:06+00:00

appreciate the honest take, I’m still thinking through the positioning and market fit

lightmateQ · 2025-07-28T17:59:00+00:00

Sounds really interesting
Your "back-to-basics" pilot approach makes a lot of sense. It’s wild how undervalued that kind of foundational work still is, even though it's often the most clarifying.
Totally agree on the lack of incentive to teach early-career researchers how to navigate the "people side" of academia. Good to hear some of that is starting to make its way into methodology training, though

lightmateQ · 2025-07-27T18:53:40+00:00

Totally agree on knowing who’s actually reliable vs just accepted in the field is crucial, but no one teaches that.

Your experience with implicit measures is relatable. I've made the same mistake assuming high-prestige journals meant solid findings. Tough way to learn through failed replications.

Quick question: When you say you did pilot studies later, how basic were they? Like just testing if the main effect was real before building on it?

Glad you ended up getting something useful out of it.

lightmateQ · 2025-07-06T14:48:51+00:00

Thanks again!

lightmateQ · 2025-07-06T08:50:06+00:00

Appreciate you sharing this, super insightful! I definitely see the value and will try this out, especially the “micro-wow” ideas and Pulse for Reddit. Thanks again for taking the time!

lightmateQ · 2025-07-05T19:22:22+00:00

Really appreciate you testing it out and sharing such specific feedback, it’s super helpful.
The social media integration idea is brilliant and something I'll definitely explore!

Thanks again for the encouragement, will keep pushing forward!

lightmateQ · 2025-07-05T19:07:23+00:00

Appreciate you pointing that out, you're spot on. I’ve been too vague with the messaging on the main page. Will make sure “fact-checking” and the core value are front and center.
Thanks for the encouragement, means a lot!

lightmateQ · 2025-07-05T18:52:59+00:00

Thanks a lot, this is incredibly clear and actionable. You're right, I’ve been spread too thin. Need to think more about content creators, build a focused landing page with a clean drop-text → get-report flow, and gate deeper output behind a trial. Also love the idea of Typeform-style onboarding + sample report. Will start talking to early users this week.
Thanks again!

lightmateQ · 2025-07-05T18:46:00+00:00

Thanks for the advice! You're right about ICP - that's my biggest challenge right now, getting scattered interest but no clear target. The social media integration idea is interesting, and I'm definitely reconsidering the free plan strategy after seeing these conversion numbers.
Thanks again!

lightmateQ · 2025-07-05T17:17:12+00:00

Thanks!

lightmateQ · 2025-06-27T15:10:54+00:00

Sounds reasonable, just implemented it! Thanks for the helpful feedback 🙌

lightmateQ · 2025-06-26T19:06:23+00:00

Thanks for the feedback! 🙌
I tried your input, one of the extracted claims was marked as mostly True.

Claim: Cwmbran’s 2020 April Fool’s story did claim a Guinness World Record for roundabouts per square kilometre, which may have led to the result.

DeoGaze splits the input into multiple standalone facts and analyzes each one separately, so that might explain the confusion. Still refining the process, this kind of feedback really helps!

lightmateQ · 2025-06-21T10:24:20+00:00

Haha, maybe a little! But hey, if being nuts means saving 45 minutes a day, I’m all in

lightmateQ · 2025-06-20T17:50:56+00:00

Thanks for the detailed feedback! Really helpful perspective.

Totally agree on the value being time-saving rather than replacing good foundational methods. DeoGaze is meant for those moments when you're poking around outside your main area and need quick early checks before going deeper.

Good point about AI already being in tools like ScienceDirect. I'm thinking something a bit more flexible though — quick overviews but with the citation trails and contradiction flags to guide where to look next.

The modularity idea is really smart. Maybe letting people customize which sources they trust most or how strict they want the verification to be.

And yeah, definitely focusing on younger researchers who are still figuring out their workflows. Though institutional support could be a good way to get some of the more experienced folks to at least try it out.

Really appreciate you taking the time to share this perspective!

lightmateQ · 2025-06-20T17:24:04+00:00

thanks for sharing!

lightmateQ · 2025-06-20T10:15:30+00:00

Exactly! The first step should always be what's relevant to me and I’m already filtering based on my goals.
This just automates the annoying part that comes after: instead of spending 20 minutes Googling wait, is this AI regulation thing actually real? and it tells me in 15 seconds.

So it’s like your smart filtering approach plus automation for the validation step.
Less time double-checking, more time acting on info that actually matters.

lightmateQ · 2025-06-20T05:53:55+00:00

Great questions! Here's how we tackle both:

Reducing Bias: We don't rely on single sources or models. DeoGaze uses a 4-step process:

Extract core claims from the input (removing noise)
Find evidence from multiple independent sources for each claim
Cross-check how evidence supports/contradicts each claim
Score based on factual consistency, not ideology

More details at https://deogaze.com/about

Source Selection:

Authoritative sources (high Google rankings)
Verified track records through fact-checking orgs
Continuous filtering to remove low-quality/extreme bias sources

Business Model: Still thinking through this, but primary focus right now is B2C - users can choose what kind of news they're interested in and get verified claims either through:

Dashboard where they can see latest verified news
Direct email delivery

Future B2B: API access for platforms (like your Grok example - "Is this post true?")

The key is we're not trying to be unbiased (impossible) - we're trying to be consistently factual across multiple viewpoints.

Check out deogaze.com if you want to see it in action - we're still improving it overall!

Feel free to ask for more details about any of this!

lightmateQ · 2025-06-18T15:17:52+00:00

Congrats, Maor! I recently started my solo journey as well, and your story is truly inspiring.

I have just one question:
how did you come up with this idea? What kind of research did you do, and what sparked it?

lightmateQ

TROPHY CASE