No, that's absolutely a fair follow-up and not harsh at all. It's very helpful. The "be nosey about places you used to live" use case is exactly what the postcode tool should serve (thinking about it), and right now it doesn't. You're right that PDF-downloads break flow badly. Tbh... that's a hangover from the "people want a thing they can save" assumption that I'm still stuck in, I guess. I'm still on the fence about giving the paid reports away wholesale, but the gap between "tells you nothing" and "£19 PDF" is way too big. I'm gonna need a middle layer of free but actually useful exploration on the site. Will have a solid think about this today. Appreciate the feedback!

▲

gnfargbl 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm also enthusiastic, it's not often you see people find a genuinely underserved niche and you have.

I don't know if I would pay £19 for a general state-of-the-area report. I would almost certainly have paid £100-300 for a service that took my planning application, critically reviewed it and told me which aspects were and were not likely to pass, with references to specific examples within my local area.

▲

mebkorea 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Thanks, honestly that means a lot! Yeah, the pre-submission review idea is interesting and I've thought about it. I have the data to surface "applications similar to yours in your ward, here's what got approved and what didn't" but I haven't built it as a workflow because it requires the user to upload their plans... and that's a different kind of trust ask, but yeah, it is definitely worth revisiting. £100-500 is also a much more honest price for something that genuinely changes a decision. £19 is in the awkward "too much for curiosity, too little for stakes" zone you and the other commenter are both pointing at.

	▲	ramon156 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Just checking, are you using an LLM to reply? Your replies are riddled with things LLMs are good at, like making quoted analogies that make no sense. They're not even analogies