(I hasten to add that the blame, if any, seems to rest with the journalist, not the Submittable team). I went back and read the article again and it reall

(I hasten to add that the blame, if any, seems to rest with the journalist, not the Submittable team). I went back and read the article again and it really is quite questionable how the company is presented. The author seems to have tried to spin some sort of "email is terrible" narrative and got lost along the way. I think the author should have tried to explain how Submittable would provide value to a company like Pandodaily and that would have been better at putting across the value. For example Pandodaily has a "tips" email which would be the perfect use case for the editorial portion of Submittable, yet that is unmentioned and instead the author tries to explain what seems to be a summary of watching someone use the site for 10 minutes. They also do not seem to have mentioned any of the other specific types that Submittable cater to, which includes resumes, audio / film submissions and grant applications, all of which have their own systems to enable proper management. Hopefully Submittable will be covered again by someone else and properly so they have a fair shot at being exposed to the masses, because this article is really doing a poor job of even hinting at what Submittable is about.