The submission represents a legitimate academic department (DTU Nanotech/Wind) at a prestigious university but suffers significantly from low-quality, facetious input data. Claims such as 'most people have used my product' and a revenue/marketcap of '1000000001' undermine credibility. There is a discrepancy between the description (215 staff) and the metadata (10,001 team size). While the underlying institution has high technical merit, the submission fails to provide verifiable evidence of traction or practical utility for a specific project, resulting in a low score driven by poor response quality and unsupported claims.
Ready to Compete for $150k+ in Prizes?
Move this data into a HackerNoon blog draft to become eligible for your share of $150k+ in cash and software prizes
Score Breakdown
Project Details
Algorithm Insights
Recommendations to Increase Usefulness Score
Document User Growth
Provide specific metrics on user acquisition and retention rates
Showcase Revenue Model
Detail sustainable monetization strategy and current revenue streams
Expand Evidence Base
Include testimonials, case studies, and third-party validation
Technical Roadmap
Share development milestones and feature completion timeline