The submission describes an established architecture firm (Nola | Van Peursem) rather than a technology project. While the business is legitimate and has a long history (est. 1948), the submission contains significant inaccuracies and low-effort responses, such as claiming the audience is 'everyone' and that 'most people have used' the product. The lack of technological innovation, combined with exaggerated reach claims and non-standard financial metrics ('all time marketcap'), results in a low score within this technology-focused evaluation framework.
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