Is this right? Kind of like "hey!, I sure can make an app for this person's problem, I'll get in touch so I can ask him how much is he willing to pay for it"? or am I way off here?
The interviews in the emails are mostly just to inspire your next project or business. They serve as a good starting point for learning more about industry challenges you might not know about.
With that said, I have successfully connected about 1/3rd of the devs who wanted to get in touch with the submitter. There is no expectation of either party needing to do that though.
If these are real problems your submitters have, they should be very eager to talk to someone who might solve it for them. The fact that they don't seem to be is a major red flag.
On the other hand, maybe some people are having problems that may have already a close-enough solution so that why would I want to build yet another one, or maybe some are so hard to implement or would require too much effort that they don't get any interest from devs.
Pretty often when I meet someone and tell them what I do for a living they start giving me all these ideas that I should be obviously doing because they are so great and no one has solved that before, or they ask me if I would know how to solve this 'simple' problem of theirs, only to have them be surprised when I tell them how much it would cost to develop an app that has offline-sync capabilities, social media features, stores pictures 'for free', etc so that they can manage their neighborhood gardens or their pottery class (hint: I'm not doing it for 500 dollars).
I'm guessing some of that could be happening here if the problems-to-solve are not curated by estimated development cost or by simplicity.
Of course, I'm not the OP so it's just a wild guess :)
I misunderstood then I think. It makes more sense that way actually.
Is it always one to one? ...would be good if the problem could be confirmed with other users