Folks, please. This isn t LinkedIn (YET).
Write your own maker comments.
Sheesh.
https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/...

Two months and 100 users can mean very different things. I doubt YC cares much about the number alone. The stronger signals are how quickly you built, whether users return without being chased, how deeply they use the product, and what you have learned that others have missed.

If you were evaluating such a startup, what would matter most: retention, weekly growth, founder insight, speed of execution, or evidence that users genuinely need the product? Where would the bar be highest?

You can claim your Instagram, TikTok, X and YouTube accounts and see how that content performs on Google Search, Discover and Google News.
What it adds is the Google query that preceded the visit, per post, with clicks and impressions you can filter, sort and export.
The reports are the smaller half of this.
In December 2025 Google ran an experiment that put social channel data into the Insights report, for a limited set of websites Search Console had already identified automatically. It needed a site. This is a separate property type, Google's phrasing on 7 July was "even those without their own website," and the four setup steps they published do not include a website anywhere. A creator with an Instagram account and no site can now hold a Search Console property. That is a change in who gets Search data at all.
What I want to test:
The Insights report identifies top, trending up and trending down query groups sending traffic from Google Search to your content. For a small business that reads like topic research you did not commission.
Google pairs annotations with checking whether an external update, such as rewriting a YouTube title or TikTok caption, affected search performance over time. It pairs the 24-hour filter with catching sudden spikes. Running those together is my idea rather than Google's guidance, and I want to see whether it holds up.
Exporting several properties into one spreadsheet lets you compare how your content performs side by side across platforms rather than arguing about which one carries a topic.
Worth knowing before you open it. This counts only traffic that arrived from Google, not your in-app views or follower reach. A small number is a finding about that one source.
One caution. None of Google's three posts on this says claiming a property affects your visibility, and I have not seen data either way. I am reading it as measurement until someone shows otherwise.
Setup is in Search Console under Add property.
https://developers.google.com/se...
I'm running all my tests, building in public at https://www.ryanlenk.com

It s easy to let client commitments swallow your calendar whole. Because client work brings immediate revenue internal products usually take a backseat whenever a deadline gets tight.

I've tested setting aside specific days or taking on fewer clients but unexpected client requests usually ruin the system within a few weeks. Balancing direct service income with long-term software development needs a far more realistic routine.

Have you successfully managed to split your week between client tasks and your own app or did you eventually have to drop client work altogether?

Like many here, I'm constantly experimenting with AI tools in my workflow. They're incredible for generating ideas, drafting content, coding snippets, etc. the efficiency gains are undeniable.

But I've been thinking about the deeper integration. Beyond using AI for specific outputs, how is it really changing your core process for creating something significant or achieving substantial growth?

An agent can have permission to use a tool without having enough context to make the business decision behind it. That's the boundary I'd want to define before giving it write access.

For me, drafting a customer email and sending it are separate permissions. Recommending a budget change and applying it are separate decisions. The useful question is what the agent can commit you to, and who carries the consequence if it gets that wrong.

I'd define the allowed action, the affected people or systems, the spending limit where relevant, and the point at which a named person must approve. I'd also want that person to see what will change before agreeing.

Rollback helps, but it doesn't erase every consequence. You can restore a price after someone has bought at it. You can correct an email after someone has acted on it. Neither returns you neatly to the starting position.

Everyone here tells you to comment more. I went and read what the points actually say, and they disagree.

My all time breakdown, read today on producthunt.com/kitty-points with the period switched to All time. Switch it, because the default view is last week and that is how people end up quoting the wrong number as their total. I did exactly that twice.

121 KP total. Forum Threads +58. Comments +48. Reviews +10. Maker +6.

Eight forum threads produced that +58. Every comment I have ever written on this site produced +48. So a thread pays roughly 7 KP and a comment pays roughly 0.74, and one thread is worth about eight comments.

Seeing more AI products move beyond chat into execution: browser agents completing transactions, cloud agents opening pull requests, and analysts generating ready-to-share reports.

The demos are increasingly convincing. The harder question is whether these agents remain dependable when the workflow becomes ambiguous, permissions change, or a step fails midway.

When evaluating an agent, what matters most to you: successful completion, visibility into each action, or the ability to review and recover from mistakes?