We've been doing link building and mention outreach with a small SEO agency since August.
I expected the hard part to be finding pages and getting anyone to answer. It wasn't. site owners reply. A lot of them. faster than a small team can keep up with.
Lately, my DMs have been full of this question. While I can t say exactly what changed after Product Hunt s Aug 25 update (since the featured criteria seem a bit mysterious now), here are a few patterns I ve noticed:
Version updates: New versions or re-launches (like Product v2.0) often don t get featured anymore.
No freemium or free trial : Launches without a free plan or trial seem to be struggling to get featured.
Hunter Featured : Having a well-known hunter doesn t guarantee a feature. In fact, recently, the two seem almost mutually exclusive.
Look & feel: Launches that use the same template design or layout as others often get skipped.
Curious to hear your thoughts - have you noticed similar trends?
We're running a one-day AI hackathon in Madrid on Saturday Sept 12. Deliberately small: 20 curated spots, engineers and founders, individual format, something working by the end of the day. Then food and beers while people demo.
The plan is to repeat it every month or so, so I care more about getting the format right than about this one edition.
Two things I keep going back and forth on:
Individual vs teams. Individual means everyone ships something and nobody hides. Teams mean more ambitious projects but a worse experience for whoever gets the bad group. I've landed on individual for a one-day format, but I'm not sure.
When I started out, I kept trying to post new threads right away thinking it would drive traffic but almost none of them got through moderation.
After spending time engaging on other founders' launches and building up actual profile activity the approval process felt completely different. It seems like the system prioritizes known participants over raw post volume.
Did you notice a specific turning point where your discussion posts started getting approved consistently?
With Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP) picking up fast, more people are plugging community MCP servers into Claude Desktop and Cursor.
Yesterday while testing a community GitHub MCP server, we noticed something wild:
The user only wanted a tool to read issues (`get_issue`). But during the initialization handshake, the server exposed 14 tools including `delete_repository` and `push_to_main`.
Because MCP currently has no native OS sandboxing, all 14 tools sat directly in the LLM's prompt window. If an agent processes an untrusted file or issue containing prompt injection, it could be tricked into calling destructive tools.
Saw a thread here going deep on problem-first thinking, and I agree with it, that s clearly the safest and most reliable approach. But it made me want to think a bit wider about what else is out there.
It reminded me of a story I heard once: an investor won t fund something unless it hits at least one or two of the seven deadly sins, greed, vanity, envy, sloth, whatever the case. The idea being that pain and desire are what actually move people to open their wallet, not just this is useful.