The submission suffers from critical credibility issues, including the unrealistic traction claim that 'most people have used my product' and a lack of verifiable web presence despite a stated 2010 launch. The technical description is negligible ('Internet'), and the response quality is extremely low. While the educational mission is valid, the lack of evidence, ambiguous financial metrics, and poor submission quality result in a minimal score.
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