ProductHunt is the Hot New Destination for Sourcing Startup Investments
mattermark.com
mattermark.com
We're in the process of building an recommendation system so people in the community can invite new contributors (a la dribbble). Here's a screenshot: https://twitter.com/rrhoover/status/480377375192932352
Thanks for your patience and sorry again to limit access but we're working to open it up!
IMHO, a good way to do the comments would be to focus on Q&A with the founders (or someone affiliated with the product) address the question. As a visitor I would like to easily be able to see which questions have been answered instead of scrolling around to piece together the conversation.
Certainly looking forward to seeing what you have planned for PH.
I'm actually testing threaded comments in staging right now (might release today) and soon after we are adding a "badge" next to the founder's name so that it's clear who made it.
> ...Product Hunt is an excellent sourcing tools for VCs looking to discover little known early stage startups.
If ProductHunt is "quickly becoming the hot new destination for sourcing startup investment opportunities" it cannot also be "an excellent sourcing tools [sic] for VCs looking to discover little known early stage startups." Lack of awareness of startups listed on ProductHunt is inversely correlated with ProductHunt's popularity.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but the OP's suggestion that ProductHunt is a great sourcing tool for VCs looking for "little known" startups is flawed. If you're a VC compelled to find promising startups before every investor in the Valley knows about them, you now need to find startups before they are ProductHunted.
In other words, it means nothing. It's pure speculation shrouded in what purports to be some sort of statistical analysis. Which isn't surprising given some of the previous "analyses" from the OP's company.[1]
If you're going to make what amounts to a causation claim ("ProductHunt Is Quickly Becoming the Hot New Destination for Sourcing Startup Investment Opportunities"), noting at the end of a long post that you have no evidence of causation is kind of silly.
Through manual detective work, Ryan Hoover was able to confirm that three companies (out of the several thousand that have appeared on ProductHunt) raised funding after being discovered on ProductHunt. Instead of doing the same sort of detective work, the OP, on the other hand, wrote up a post with a broad, bold claim, put together a bunch of statistics unrelated to validating said claim, and then added the caveat that her statistics did not show the causation her claim required.
Put simply, to establish that ProductHunt is widely being used for deal sourcing, you would need to contact the startups and/or investors and ask them. At that point, you could compare the number of startups that have appeared on ProductHunt to the number of deals that were sourced through ProductHunt and draw a legitimate, meaningful conclusion about ProductHunt's popularity as a sourcing tool.
I do have to agree with @willu tho, their commenting system is way too elitist. =(