To the sellers of upvote bots:

You're not "supporting" makers. You're misleading the community.

Product Hunt was built to surface genuinely useful, creative, and innovative products. The moment fake upvotes flood the rankings, it becomes harder for real builders to gain visibility and easier for spam and mediocrity to win.

Hey All,

The thesis of a 1-person Unicorn has been going around since the emergence of LLMs and Agents. While I certainly see how an engineer can now do the work of 10, maybe 20 engineers, I'm still not able to see the path to a $1B company.

Hi everyone,

I m about to launch my product, ViralSort 2.0, and I m exploring whether to launch with a Product Hunt hunter or do it on my own.
I ve launched a few products both with hunters and independently, but I m still not convinced which approach truly drives more visibility, engagement, or traction.
Has anyone tried launching with a hunter?
Did it make a noticeable difference, or would you recommend submitting independently?
I d love to hear your experiences, insights, or even lessons learned from both approaches!

Back when I was doing dropshipping, honestly the worst part was testing. You find a product, make the store, run ads... and a week later you find out nobody wants it. Money gone.

So how do you do it now?

• do you test before launch or just launch and pray lol

• what's the cheapest test that actually worked for you?

I recently came across a post on X saying that "if you're strong at execution but struggling to level up as a leader, you may not be simulating before communicating".

This caught my attention as I do simulate a lot of important conversations before they happen. I've recently used LLMs and interview coaching tools, and even vibe-coded my own tool to act as an AI coach. But my main issue is that every time I use any of these, I have to start over and rebuild the context of what matters and what not, and run into the same frictions again. That in addition to constantly tuning the often sloppy AI advice.

AI tools can now analyze years of employee performance reviews, retention metrics, and project outputs to generate hiring profiles and team structures: "hire for X trait," "keep teams under Y size."

I ve spent over a decade leading cross-functional teams, and I m skeptical. Not because the AI can t spot correlation, but because I ve seen how easily corporate data misrepresents human dynamics. A team can look high-performing on paper while burning out its best people behind closed doors. If the AI learns from that HR record, it standardizes burnout with total confidence.

Here s where I ve landed so far. I d need three things before acting on an AI-generated organizational lesson:

1. The qualitative feedback, visible. Skip-level notes, team sentiment, and anonymous feedback loops. Not just productivity charts.

2. The market context at the time. A hyper-aggressive growth playbook from a bull market will backfire in a retention-focused downturn. The lesson should state when it applies.

3. A leadership sign-off. A manager who navigated the human side confirms the nuance before it becomes an algorithmic hiring filter.

Our brain run on autopilot more often than we realise. One such behaviour is hearding, where we have the tendency to follow group or try to in a group. Imagine a few people suddenly started running. You don't know what's happening, but you might start running too, assuming they know something you don't?
Now, lets apply this into Cusomer behaviour, a D2C product goes viral and suddenly everyone wants to try it. A resturants has a queue outside it, we assume food must be good. A SaaS product gets #1 on product hunt and everyone wants to know what it does.
This i find really intriguing, becuase popularity can become a shortcut for credibility. (PS not shade to people who gets #1 on this platform a very big deal and hardwork) I'm just naturally curious on cusomer behaviour, read this paper recently in harvard business review about how fast consumer behaviour is changing in this decade.
Curious to hear what other makers think.

My mum tells people I "work with computers". My dad has decided I have something to do with marketing, which is closer, and he says it with a slight question mark at the end. I've explained it properly maybe four times. It never sticks, and I've stopped being annoyed about that, because I think the fault is mine. Every explanation I give starts from the product instead of from the problem.

Which is exactly what's wrong with most homepages, including ours.

So what's your parents' version? And have you ever found a way to say it that actually landed?