u/luodaint

Was launched a month back, I spiked, then nada.

The signups were staying close to zero for a while as the paying customers remained. I was constantly refreshing the analytics, looking for a miracle. The only thing that made any difference was mundane; I posted those comparisons that my paying customers were already trying to Google. "X vs Y." "alternatives to Z."

This week, the pages received their first organic visitors. Small numbers, but it's traffic that doesn't require me to post daily.

For all those after the initial launch push: did the SEO comparison content help you, or was it never a winner?

Solo founder here. For months, I made assumptions about what customers want.

After that, I added a public board. Customers submit suggestions, they vote, and they see what gets shipped. Not any surveys. Not any phone calls.

The numbers are small and I am not going to make them pretty. My best shipped suggestion got three votes. Most of the suggestions have one vote. The suggestions that have zero votes got discarded.

However, the signal was genuine. I assumed that people want core functionalities. Instead, they wanted connectors: Trello, Google Scholar, and some data sources – all that stuff which was on the bottom of my list. Three got shipped because of the votes, not because of my assumptions.

The best thing is that it is public. Customers see how their suggestion gets from “under review” to “shipped,” and then they come back. Research and retention happen at the same place.

This is something I use through my own feedback platform. To be clear, I am the founder of it. Feel free to leave the link in the comments below, but that’s not why I’m posting.

One thing: I rebuilt the landing page based on the feedback from the board. Could you give it a brutal 5-second review? Does its purpose make sense, and where do you bail?

I made Feedjolt, a feedback board, public roadmap and changelog for creators.

Why? Every feedback system that I've tried charges per seat. One more colleague, one more seat. And if I'm running a company by myself then the logic is flawed. That's why Feedjolt is flat pricing and scales with you.

I deliver based on demand, not roadmap theatre. Feature "add category" had 3 votes and was shipped. Non-voted features get killed. Everything else in the roadmap is public.

AI processes feedback, however a human approves everything before a reply is sent back to a user. I'm not allowing a model to cold outreach people who pay for it.

I test it on my other product, an AI research platform.

Founder here. Looking for a few indie builders to give it a test run and point out the flaws, the crueler the better. The link will be in the first comment.

As a startup founder, early on I tried what founders do – guess the roadmap, build something cool, some parts nobody touches.

So I put the entire roadmap into a public view and allow users to vote on what goes live. Very small numbers, we are not making any virally popular product yet. Top voted request for us is the "Add category" – three votes. At this number of votes, one single vote means a lot.

What was surprising? Not shiny new features. But integrations. Trello, Google Scholar, SEC Edgar, QuickBooks, HubSpot, OneNote. Even someone asked for MCP integration so their AI bot could understand our boards. Right now we have 14 requests pending at "Under review" stage.

Concept I like: minimalistic flat priced feedback board with AI helping in triaging new things, while a human being has the final decision on everything that interacts with users in any way. Something for individual founders and small teams, not for the enterprise. Canny and Featurebase nailed this market segment already.

So, for this particular sub: in validating an idea that’s in a competitive category, does “smaller, flatter, human-in-the-loop” actually create some room, or is it just something every me-too entrepreneur tells himself? Where could you take it further?

Full disclosure: I’m the founder; the product’s name is Feedjolt. Don’t hesitate to put the link or the roadmap screenshots in the comment section if it helps; not plugging but really looking for the idea validation.

Tiny SaaS, no marketing budget at all. I’m running the entire retention loop through the product’s public roadmap and changelog rather than lifecycle email.

The process: users put feature requests out there publicly and vote on them. I prioritize and deliver by number of votes. If a requested feature ships, it is communicated directly to those who voted: “you requested this, we delivered.”

The truth: the numbers are small. The highest number on my public roadmap: 3. Majority of requests have 1 vote. It’s nothing close to viral traction.

Yet, the process is effective, since the person being contacted is the one whose voice mattered to me enough to vote. It is cheaper than email tools. It makes the user feel valued, as they were listened to.

The catch: it will work only if I ship exactly what users voted for. As soon as I collect their votes and don’t ship anything, my closed-loop system turns into a graveyard.

For those of you running public roadmaps or changelogs: does the "shipped by your vote" loop measurably pull people back, or do you still need lifecycle email underneath it? Curious where it stops scaling.

Five months, one repo, built alone.

I developed a feedback board + public roadmap app. Intended target: sell to medium-sized businesses with money.

Targeting was wrong from the beginning.

Those who are truly struggling with feedback management are not large enterprises. It is the solo entrepreneurs and individuals launching three products each week through feedback distributed via DM channels in Slack, a neglected Notion, and "this is broken" messages without any explanation. Therefore, I turned everything around to serve these folks.

Developing this product openly made me realize something unexpected.

Firstly, the roadmap is a humbling experience. The most requested feature I have had received three votes. The vast majority of requests get just 1 vote. I added "add category" which scored three votes but rejected prettier features which scored none. You simply add what your users vote for.

Secondly, I host it on another product I have developed myself. That was the moment when it started feeling like a product of the people and for the people.

One position from which I will never budge: The AI filters through the responses but a human is the final say on any response. Yes, slower, but also the only piece where I am proud to attach my name.

Now comes the teardown portion of this process. The hard criticisms of the product, not the landing page. What’s wrong? The link has been provided in the comments below and this is not just an anonymous drive-by roast.

5 months. 1 repo. 1 thing that everyone continues to debate with me about.

Feedjolt is a feedback board + roadmap + changelog. Customers submit features, upvote/downvote, track their implementation. Canny/Featurebase territory, but designed by and for solo founders & small teams, not for large enterprises.

It runs right now on my own product's feedback (Medullar). Currently working on the workspace managers dashboard – yes, it's the In Progress item on the roadmap, so you'll see how fast it moves.

What I need from you: several developers/makers who would submit some feedback and help me test where Feedjolt breaks (onboarding, triaging itself, roadmap UI).

Link in comments. I will help you get started with your first board.

But here’s the kicker: at this phase, the numbers are small.

“Add category” – my top-voted shipped request – got 3 votes. Trello connector: 2. Google Scholar connector: 2. I shipped them anyway.

At first, you won’t get a good signal. What you’ll get is someone who wants a feature badly and a feeling about it. And here’s the true decision – not “ship based on the vote” but when one true vote beats what you have planned yourself.

For that, I used a simple feedback board and tried it out on my product. Using a tool like that certainly didn’t help make a decision. It simply brought visibility into the process and made me unable to ignore those I didn’t want to implement.

So how do you prioritize features – go by voting, take the loudest user’s request, or listen to your gut? Right now, I still prefer going by my gut over the vote. Wonder how this changes once I’m bigger.

5 months. 1 repo. 1 person.

I found myself losing user feedback through emails, direct messages, and even memory. So I made Feedjolt: a feedback board, roadmap, and changelog. Feedbackers can suggest features, vote for others' suggestions, and follow what's shipped.

Developed by me alone, I deploy it in my personal AI R&D project, so no demo there; the screenshot shows the real roadmap with genuine feedback posts and votes.

The funny thing is, it gives me clear instructions on what to build next. "Add category" was done, after 3 upvotes; "Linear connector" after two. Just building the top of the list.

One thing is embedded into the process: while AI sorts the new entries and suggests priorities, a person makes the final decision. Once, the model sent a cold message to a user who just posted he/she was broke and out of a job. No AI decision-making for humans.

The screenshot is the live roadmap. Real posts, real votes.

Be brutal: what's confusing in the first 10 seconds? Where would you bounce?

https://preview.redd.it/712jiygd776h1.png?width=2282&format=png&auto=webp&s=952eef92bed2e2c6c1440807cf890aef68337bbe

I’ve created a feedback tool. Initially, I focused on small businesses, but I realized the main focus should be on startups and solo entrepreneurs with limited funds who still need a feedback tool.

Today I’ve decided to create a “start-up” price of only $9 a month, with full features but some limits that will “fill” as usage increases. That will allow startups, vive-coders, solo entrepreneurs, etc. to have a good feedback tool with almost no expense.

In the future, if it works (the client), I expect that they’ll buy a better license. So we all win.

WDYT?

The new price will be released tomorrow if all the tests work.

Almost all feedback products out there are charged per seat. Canny, Featurebase, add another teammate? Your costs go up. I did it differently. Same price, however many teammates, period.

Why so? Because the per-seat price model penalized the actual goal: more participants on your team engaging with customer feedback through the board. More eyes on it, more improvements to the product. I wasn't charging for something that I considered valuable.

The key insight: this product was created specifically for my other product, an AI research tool Medullar. When seat pricing made my teammates' engagement problematic, I realized my pricing approach was flawed. I dropped the seat pricing for that week.

What do I lose? Well, obviously, per-customer revenue is capped, even though it would take some very large teams to hit that cap. Flat pricing may lead to fewer revenues, but I am confident that lower barriers and organic word-of-mouth will pay off.

Work in progress, definitely. If you're running a small SaaS product, please test it yourself in your own app. The product is called FeedJolt. Here is the link.

I run a public feedback board for the product I work on – the usual stuff like roadmap and upvotes.

What really caught me off guard was how small my shipping threshold was. We shipped "Add category" after just 3 votes, a Trello connector with only 2, and even QuickBooks with just 1. More than half the things we moved to completed barely made a blip in terms of votes.

When the board first launched, I would've never shipped with such low numbers. Early on, I wanted heaps of evidence before acting. But the truth is, with lower traffic, these tiny signals were all I had to go on.

If I'd insisted on waiting for dozens of votes, we'd still be doing nothing. Each one-vote request is from someone who genuinely cares enough to ask. By talking to those users directly, we learned much faster.

That said, it's important to note that we don’t blindly follow votes. Our team is currently working on a manager’s dashboard with zero votes – something we believe strongly will benefit our users. Voting informs decisions here, but it doesn't completely dictate them.

Where do you draw the line? At what vote or request count does a feature stop being noise and become a roadmap item? And does that number move with your user count, or is it fixed?

Launch week was crazy loud. Visitors streamed in, and I ran a show that kept folks hooked, along with a directory feature. It felt amazing. But when week two came around, the traffic dipped, like it normally does, and I waited for the usual drop-off in readers.

It never happened. The two people who began paying stuck around. One even set up their public roadmap, and guess what? Their users started voting on it all by themselves, no effort from me needed.

This surprised me the most. It showed that what truly matters isn't the initial rush of visitors but whether those early paying users stay past day seven. I had been focusing on getting people to the top of the funnel, but really, the problem was keeping the first real users engaged.

If you just launched something, keep an eye on the day-7 mark for your first paying group. That’s the real test of whether things are going well.

6-month bootstrapped journey, no co-founder, no funding. Day of the launch on Product Hunt.

Product I built: feedback & roadmap tool for B2B SaaS companies. Wedge: flat pricing, no per-seat tax, unlimited end-users. Observed many people downgrade from Canny because adding just one CSM increases their billing.

Tech Stack: Next.js 16 + FastAPI + Postgres, EU-hosting, 3 languages.

What am I really unsure about:

• Is "flat pricing" enough wedge, or is "indie SaaS" community indifferent to per-seat billing?
• Am I overinvesting in i18n (en/es/ca), before product-market fit?

I’m open to discussing the numbers, tech-stack, and the reason behind each of them. Posting the question in good spirits of the sub.

6-month bootstrapped journey, no co-founder, no funding. Day of the launch on Product Hunt.

Product I built: feedback & roadmap tool for B2B SaaS companies. Wedge: flat pricing, no per-seat tax, unlimited end-users. Observed many people downgrade from Canny because adding just one CSM increases their billing.

Tech Stack: Next.js 16 + FastAPI + Postgres, EU-hosting, 3 languages.

What am I really unsure about:

• Is "flat pricing" enough wedge, or is "indie SaaS" community indifferent to per-seat billing?
• Am I overinvesting in i18n (en/es/ca), before product-market fit?

I’m open to discussing the numbers, tech-stack, and the reason behind each of them. Posting the question in good spirits of the sub.