It's all a fine balancing act, sure, but ...

"This isn't a popularity contest... so anyway, here's how voting works" is a bit silly, and right there on the front page is "yesterday's winners" which is more than a bit disingenuous.

What if I vote for nothing because all of the products are bad? Why do I care about a user leaderboard for with streaks and their voting history? No noise?

People are so concerned with having an actual downvote button but not-so-concerned with how gameable upvote only systems are.

One of my favorite newsletters just gives links with one-line description. Done. What if this site just listed 10 products a day. No voting, no "judgment" by anyone except the person curating the links.

What if 100 products come out in a week. How do you choose?

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Just another channel to saturate

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You raise some valid points. I'm working to strike a balance between giving visibility to products and avoiding the "popularity contest" vibe, and I'm definitely open to refining how that works.

As for the leaderboard and voting history, I understand your concern. The idea behind it is to encourage meaningful participations, but I get how it could feel like extra noise.

Also right now, it's first come, first served, with makers able to schedule their launch up to 30 days ahead. This keep things fair and transparent, ensuring everyone gets an equal opportunity without having to compete for visibility.

If the platform grows, I might explore other ways to keep things manageable whether that's a curated selection, specific categories, or something else BUT for now, the goal is to maintain a simple and fair system that gives everyone a shot.