3 ms·

I’ve never reflected on why the Launch HNs are so interesting to read, but after looking through the guidelines it makes sense. Learning about a company in the

by npilk 5y ago

I’ve never reflected on why the Launch HNs are so interesting to read, but after looking through the guidelines it makes sense. Learning about a company in the tone of someone speaking to peers instead of selling to an audience is a breath of fresh air. Thanks for all the editing work you put in to make that happen.

clairity 5y ago
the standard format seems to be getting stale to my ears. they all start out with the founding myth, told bedtime story style, which wears on the feelers after a while. i'd suggest getting even more direct and succinct by leaving out the myth: "after running into [this stupid problem] a few dozen times, we decided to try to solve it with [this hopefully novel solution]. it grew [in this direction] to become [our product]." then maybe relate two or three relevant, novel, non-obvious details as conversation starters, along with the requisite who (by, and for), what (major features/options), and how much.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  I have been getting tired of the format as well. I notice that the first couple clarifying comments by the founders in their launch thread tend to be more candid, revealing and pique my curiousity if the idea is good. One of my favorite pieces of writing advice is to make the conclusion the introduction. Perhaps these startups should let themselves get beaten up in a test launch and then replace their intros with their comments. :)
- bambax 5y ago
  > the standard format seems to be getting stale to my ears Really? Not to mine. It still sounds very fresh and so different from what one reads everywhere else.
quickthrower2 5y ago
I have noticed they are in a distinctive style of “Hi we are X … some background about us … the problem we identified … how we solve it … we think there is a market because …” I haven’t read the guidelines but that’s the pattern I’ve seen. I’ve always assumed this is how they also communicated to VCs and potential employees about their history and vision. It’s sad if they have to be more salesy for those people.

by npilk 5y ago

clairity 5y ago

the standard format seems to be getting stale to my ears. they all start out with the founding myth, told bedtime story style, which wears on the feelers after a while. i'd suggest getting even more direct and succinct by leaving out the myth: "after running into [this stupid problem] a few dozen times, we decided to try to solve it with [this hopefully novel solution]. it grew [in this direction] to become [our product]." then maybe relate two or three relevant, novel, non-obvious details as conversation starters, along with the requisite who (by, and for), what (major features/options), and how much.

1123581321 5y ago
I have been getting tired of the format as well. I notice that the first couple clarifying comments by the founders in their launch thread tend to be more candid, revealing and pique my curiousity if the idea is good. One of my favorite pieces of writing advice is to make the conclusion the introduction. Perhaps these startups should let themselves get beaten up in a test launch and then replace their intros with their comments. :)
bambax 5y ago
> the standard format seems to be getting stale to my ears Really? Not to mine. It still sounds very fresh and so different from what one reads everywhere else.

quickthrower2 5y ago

I have noticed they are in a distinctive style of “Hi we are X … some background about us … the problem we identified … how we solve it … we think there is a market because …” I haven’t read the guidelines but that’s the pattern I’ve seen. I’ve always assumed this is how they also communicated to VCs and potential employees about their history and vision. It’s sad if they have to be more salesy for those people.