Every argument clarity score on this site is built from rows on this page. Each
question and answer was assessed with names hidden, the host's own answers included, on
four things from 1 to 5:
directness (does it answer the question asked), coherence (do the ideas follow),
precision (concrete details and clear references), compression (says a lot per word). The weighted
mix (30/30/25/15) is the exchange score. A person's published score averages their exchange
scores on raw tape only, at least 8 of them, shrunk toward the cohort mean.
Full method →
John Wuebben no published score: no usable exchanges on raw tape, and a fair score needs 8+ · coarse estimate ≈4.5/5 from 4 produced feed exchanges record → ← everyone
Every exchange below was scored with names hidden, four dimensions each from 1 to 5.
An exchange's score is 0.30·directness + 0.30·coherence + 0.25·precision + 0.15·compression.
The published score averages the raw tape exchange scores and shrinks small samples toward the
cohort mean, so five great answers can't beat twenty good ones. Produced feed rows count only
toward coarse estimates, never toward a full score.
Answered produced feed
D 5 · C 5 · P 5 · Cm 4 4.85
Q asked myself, do I want to run a big agency or build software? And you said software, uh, but you still have agency revenue. So why are you holding onto that safety net? Why not cut it completely and force yourself to go all in on the SAS product? You even said it. You don't even think about the SAS product each morning. You don't look at the revenue numbers.
A Yeah, well, no, we have done that. I mean, that's just been recently. So, so we did divest it. Um, we, now the reason we did 35 K last year and, and agency revenue is because we were working on a big video project that kind of came out of nowhere. We weren't expecting it. It's clearly not a software kind of project. So that still fell under agency quote unquote type of project. And we've done a lot of video in the past for IBM and other companies. So, so we're now saying no to those kinds of projects. And what we're doing is reporting over all the agency clients into the platform. And we have about 40 agency clients over the last two years we're doing that. So now, yeah, we're all in. It's all about software moving forward.
AI assessment note: “no, we have done that. I mean, that's just been recently. So, we did divest it.”
Answered produced feed
D 5 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.60
Q Wait, why choice? Why was that the choice, though?
A I'm getting to that, man. Slow down. Um, so the reason I made that decision is because I didn't want to run a big agency. I didn't want to run a big agency where I'm managing clients on a day-to-day basis. I'd already done that for 12 years, so, so running a software company was the next thing for me. Right. And so I really work well with software developers. I love conceptualizing things. I love building stuff. So for me, it was an easy decision on that side. It was a hard decision. The fact that I knew it was going to take a lot of time and I knew it was going to take a lot of money. Um, but for me, all roads were pointing towards building a platform. So that's what we did.
AI assessment note: “the reason I made that decision is because I didn't want to run a big agency.”
Answered produced feed
D 5 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.60
Q Okay. But I thought you just said you're just now kind of launching the SAS platform. So what happened in the four years before that?
A Yeah, so that's the part that a lot of people, a lot of, you know, startups, a lot of entrepreneurs kind of don't understand or don't appreciate, is that it's not easy, right? We had an alpha product two and a half years ago. It was not ready. It was not ready for prime time. We went through the whole thing. We spent a lot of money. We marketed it, and it just was not good enough. We couldn't compete, so we took it down. We re-architected the entire front end. We redid a bunch of stuff on the back end, and so what we have now is Far and away better than we had two and a half years ago. So yeah, I mean, it was hard. We spent twice as much money. It's like twice as long to do.
AI assessment note: “We had an alpha product two and a half years ago. It was not ready.”
Answered produced feed
D 5 · C 4 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.30
Q Okay. I'm trying to, yeah, it's always difficult. It's always hard, but I'm trying to dissect. So what I heard you say was it didn't work because it wasn't architect right and it looks differently. Now it's architected the right way and it looks different. Am I hearing, is it accurate?
A Completely different product. I mean, the user experience was substandard with the first alpha product. People didn't know where to click, where to go. Users were confused. We were in love with our ugly baby, right? We were, we thought it was great. And we used it internally and it was great, but we couldn't get buy-in. We couldn't get people to buy to pay for it. So, so yeah, we had to reinvent it. We had to reinvent the platform. We need to, you know, take a step back and we had to, I got rid of my developers, actually went through a lawsuit with some developers and I won in that lawsuit. So that was the, I mean, whenever you start a company, there's good, bad, and the ugly. And that was the ugly part.
AI assessment note: “Completely different product. I mean, the user experience was substandard with the first alpha product.”
