The submission presents significant contradictions between a professionally written description and highly unprofessional, inconsistent metadata fields. While the description claims 40,000 users and partnerships with major universities (Oxford, Peking, UCL), there is no verifiable external evidence (press, research papers, or social footprint) to support this. The traction claim 'most people have used my product' is hyperbolic and unverifiable. The discrepancy between the project name 'Schometer' and the field 'name': 'StarShade' suggests a copy-paste error or lack of attention to detail. The revenue field confuses market cap with revenue. Due to these red flags and lack of verifiable traction, the score is heavily penalized.
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