Building Needly: a simpler way to test business ideas

That’s a great question.

Right now, Needly is still very early, so the first version is closer to opportunity discovery and basic validation guidance.But the direction I want to take is more interactive than just “create a landing page + waitlist”.

The goal would be:

1. You enter an idea or a market

2. Needly identifies the core assumptions behind it

3. It suggests the fastest ways to test those assumptions

4. It helps generate things like landing page copy, survey questions, Reddit/LinkedIn posts, and customer interview questions

5. Then it helps interpret the feedback and gives a recommendation: keep going, pivot, or drop it

So I see Needly less as a simple waitlist builder, and more as a validation copilot for early founders.

This is actually something I’m trying to figure out from feedback: whether people want more discovery, more validation, or both.

That’s a really good point.

I don’t think founders only struggle with finding ideas. You’re right that a big part of the problem is validating the assumptions behind an idea they already have.

Needly is still very early, so my current goal is to understand which use case is more valuable:

1. helping people discover new problems worth solving

2. helping people validate an idea they already have

From the first feedback, I’m starting to think the second use case may actually be stronger.

So instead of positioning Needly only as an “idea finder”, I may shift it more toward an “idea validation tool” that helps founders answer:

“Is this problem real, painful, and worth building for?”

Thanks for pointing this out. It’s exactly the kind of feedback I’m looking for.

Thanks a lot, that’s exactly the kind of question I’m trying to solve with Needly.

I don’t think one signal should be enough on its own. A big waitlist can be misleading if nobody has a strong pain, and interviews can also be biased if people are just being polite. So I’m thinking the validation should combine several signals: quality of pain in interviews, willingness to pay or preorder, repeated patterns across users, clarity of the target customer, and whether people take a real action instead of just saying “sounds interesting.”

For killing an idea, Needly should probably look for weak or fake signals: people like the concept but don’t feel urgency, nobody agrees to a follow-up, nobody wants to pay, the problem is too vague, or the founder cannot reach the target customer easily.

And I agree with your point about keeping founders honest. That might actually become one of the most important parts of the product: forcing the founder to define kill criteria before running the test. For example: “If fewer than 3 out of 15 target users agree to a follow-up or show payment intent, this idea should be paused or changed.”

So the goal is not just to validate ideas, but to make founders commit to evidence before they emotionally defend the idea. Really appreciate the feedback. This helps a lot with shaping the MVP loop.

Thanks, I’m glad that direction makes sense. I’m going to use the “30-second test” as a core rule for the result page: the founder should immediately understand the riskiest assumption and the exact test to run this week. The deeper evidence will stay available, but secondary. One quick question: would you prefer the first result to show a single recommended test, or 2–3 test options ranked by speed and reliability?

Thanks a lot, I really appreciate it. That’s exactly the direction I’m trying to move toward. I don’t want Needly to be just another idea generator. The goal is to help founders break down an idea into its core assumptions, then give them practical ways to test those assumptions quickly: customer interview questions, landing page copy, outreach messages, success metrics, and eventually a clear keep / pivot / drop recommendation. I’m learning from the feedback that the most valuable part may not be “finding an idea”, but helping someone avoid spending months on an idea they haven’t really tested. Really appreciate the encouragement.

That’s a really good point.

You’re right that Indie Hackers is probably biased toward people who already have ideas or projects in motion. So if I only listen to IH comments, I might over-index on validation and miss the people who are still looking for what to build.

I think the right move for now is not to fully abandon discovery, but to keep both paths visible:

1. I already have an idea → validation flow

2. I need to find a problem → discovery flow

Then I can test which one people naturally choose.

I’ll try to talk to at least 5 founders or aspiring founders who don’t have an idea yet and see if discovery is painful enough for them to pay for. If they exist and care, discovery could be the wedge. If not, validation is probably the stronger initial focus.

Thanks for pointing this out — it’s a useful reminder not to pivot the whole positioning too early from a small and biased sample.

That’s a very good point. I agree that a high-confidence score without evidence would be hard to trust. The Needly Score should not just be a number; it should be explainable and traceable. For each score, I want to show the main drivers behind it, such as demand signals, competition, monetization potential, testability, and key assumptions. I also really like the idea of identifying the weakest assumption before generating a full plan. That would make the product much more useful, because the founder would know what to test first instead of getting a generic roadmap. So the flow could be: enter an idea, get a score with visible evidence, identify the weakest assumption, run a small test on that assumption, and only then generate the full validation plan. This is exactly the kind of feedback I’m looking for. Thanks a lot.

This comment was deleted a month ago

Thanks a lot, this is actually really useful feedback. I hadn’t fully thought about Needly being used that way, but it makes sense: instead of only validating a new startup idea, it can also help someone who is already building identify the main pain points worth prioritizing. The fact that it surfaced two things you were already working on and one you hadn’t considered is a really good signal. That might become an important use case: “enter what you’re building → discover the pain points you should focus on next.” Also, thanks for flagging the scoring issue. I think the auto-translation from French is probably causing some text to break or disappear. I’ll make the scoring clearer and make sure the labels explain exactly what each score means. Really appreciate you testing it and sharing this.

Thanks a lot, I completely agree. A score by itself is not enough if people don’t understand why the idea received that score. I want the Needly Score to be explainable, not just a number. The goal is to show the reasoning behind it, for example: what makes the problem painful, who the target customer is, how strong the demand signals are, what alternatives already exist, how easy it is to test, and whether there is a realistic path to monetization. That way, founders can trust the result and know what to do next instead of just seeing a random score. This is definitely one of the main things I want to improve.

Thanks a lot, this is a really thoughtful point. I agree that the score should not feel too definitive or pretend to know the truth about an idea. It should be more like a decision aid that shows the assumptions behind the opportunity. I really like the way you framed it: who is the specific user, what painful moment are they already experiencing, and what evidence would prove they care enough to act. That is probably much more useful than just saying an idea is “good” or “bad.” I also agree that a narrow, real use case can be a stronger starting point than a broad market idea. The direction I’m taking from this feedback is that Needly should help founders create a concrete one-week test that can either validate or disprove the riskiest assumption. In many cases, helping someone quickly realize an idea is not worth building may be just as valuable as recommending one. Really appreciate this feedback.

Thanks a lot, this is one of the clearest ways I’ve seen the value framed. I agree that ideas coming from personal pain are usually stronger than ideas found in a database. That makes me think Needly should not try to “replace” founder insight, but help founders test whether their insight is real enough to build around. The point about tests that only confirm an idea is especially important. A lot of first-time founders probably design validation in a way that protects the idea instead of challenging it. I really like your question: does this help someone kill a bad idea in a week instead of a quarter? That might become one of the core principles for the product. The strongest version of Needly may be less about recommending ideas and more about creating tests that expose the weakest assumption quickly. Really appreciate this feedback.

Salut,

Merci beaucoup pour le retour, c’est utile. Je vais vérifier le bug d’affichage sur la fenêtre de compte, parce que ça peut effectivement donner une mauvaise impression.

Pour l’audit UX, pourquoi pas, mais avant de payer j’aimerais bien voir 1 ou 2 exemples concrets de points que tu as repérés sur Needly, pour comprendre le niveau de détail du rapport.

Si c’est vraiment actionnable, je pourrais être intéressé.

Merci encore pour le feedback.

This is extremely helpful, thank you.

I agree with the point about the score. A single number is not enough if people cannot understand why it is high or low. I’m going to add the top 2-3 drivers behind each Needly Score, like pain level, clarity of the customer, competition, and how easy it is to test.

The “weekend test plan” idea is also very close to the direction I want to take. I don’t want Needly to become another idea list. The goal should be that someone leaves with a concrete validation plan they can run quickly: landing page, outreach script, success metric, and customer interview questions.

You’re also right that each opportunity needs a very clear customer sentence and a definition of what “validated” means for that specific idea.

For the first audience, I think I’ll optimize for first-time founders and indie hackers who have an idea but don’t know if it is worth testing. They usually need practical guidance more than a big strategy document.

I’d definitely appreciate UI notes if you’re open to sharing them.