First impression
What a first-time visitor is likely to notice and understand first.
Optional private feedback
See your project through fresh eyes.
A Fresh Eyes Report is a human-checked first-impression report for founders who want practical, private feedback on what feels clear, what feels confusing, and what may help a new visitor understand the project faster.
The free submission is saved before checkout. Buying private feedback does not affect Project Note selection or wording.
What is included
Clarity and messaging
Notes on the value proposition, primary CTA, and language that may need context.
Trust signals
Observations about the cues that help or hinder confidence.
Practical next changes
A short list of specific improvements, with why each one may matter.
Complete sample report
Fresh eyes on Project Radar
We wrote this demonstration about our own site using the public-page copy in our September 4, 2026 version. It is an editorial example, not a customer report or evidence of user testing. Linked pages may change after this snapshot.
Copy snapshot:
Project snapshot
Project Radar helps readers find indie software and gives selected projects a public profile and a longer Project Note. Makers can submit for free and choose optional private feedback afterward.
Intended reader. A reader looking for a useful tool, or a maker deciding whether to submit a project.
Source pages: Homepage, All Projects and its profile pages, Submit, How Project Notes Work, and this offer page.
First impression
The homepage makes its position on paid editorial influence clear. It also gives readers a search box and makers a submission link. I would keep those separate paths. The main copy spends more space explaining editorial independence than showing the reader what they can find here.
- Homepage
- Somewhat clear
The purpose is visible, but the reader benefit could be more specific.
- Messaging
- Somewhat clear
Profile and Project Note need a clearer distinction.
- Calls to action
- Clear
Search, browse, and submit each name the next action.
- Trust signals
- Clear
The pages state the editorial policy. This does not verify how every decision is made.
- Pricing
- Clear
Free submission and the optional $19 one-time report are separated in the copy.
- Mobile experience
- Not reviewed
This sample does not include a device or layout test.
- Onboarding
- Not reviewed
No submission, email delivery, owner login, or purchase was completed for this sample.
What felt clear
- The homepage labels its reader and founder paths. Someone with a project to submit has a direct route without needing to use the directory first.
- The submission page says coverage is a possibility and describes the public page a selected project may receive. It does not promise customers or traffic.
- The Fresh Eyes offer gives a price, names the private deliverable, and says payment does not affect public Project Notes. That distinction is worth preserving beside the purchase path.
What needs more context
- The homepage repeats the rule about paid editorial influence in its introduction and editorial panel. A reader still has to look farther down for a concrete picture of the apps, websites, and tools in the archive.
- The directory says a profile contains the full ProjectRadar note. Profiles have a short version and a separate Project Note link, so that promise needs more precise wording.
- The submission page lists what a published project may receive, but that explanation has no example profile beside it. A new maker has to leave the form and find one independently.
Calls to action and messaging
Keep Browse projects available beside search so readers can explore without knowing a product name. On the maker path, keep the free submission action explicit and explain the optional report after saving. Do not ask a new visitor to understand the paid offer before they can submit.
Trust and confidence
The process page explains automation-assisted drafting, an editorial decision, and corrections. Those statements help set expectations. This sample assesses their wording only; it does not establish that every published note followed the stated process.
Changes I would make first
1. Give readers one concrete reason to browse
The homepage introduction and side panel repeat the separation of sponsorship and editorial selection. That policy matters, but a visitor also needs to know whether the catalog contains something useful to them.
Keep the independence statement and use the supporting paragraph to explain the catalog: "Find indie apps, websites, and tools, with a short explanation of who each project may help and a link to try it."
Homepage introduction and editorial panel2. Explain the profile and the full note at the directory entrance
The directory promises the full note on the profile, while the profile links to the longer Project Note separately. Consistent wording helps readers know what to expect after opening a project.
Use: "Open a profile for a short overview and the official project link. Follow its Project Note link for the longer write-up." Use the same distinction wherever these two pages are introduced.
All Projects introduction and linked profiles3. Show a published example beside the submission explanation
The "What you may get if published" section lists a profile, Project Note, official link, and discovery opportunities without linking to an example there. A maker can judge whether that kind of page would be useful before completing the form.
Add one existing profile and its Project Note with the label "See an example of a published project." Keep the surrounding statement that coverage is not guaranteed.
Submission page, What you may get if published
Biggest opportunity
Make the outcome visible at each entrance. Readers need an example of what they can discover. Makers need an example of the page their project might receive. The catalog already supplies that material.
Final takeaway
I would start with the homepage supporting copy, then fix the profile-versus-note wording and add the submission example. These are small changes to help people understand the offer. Their effect on visits, submissions, or sales would need to be measured after release.
How it works
- 1.Send a free project submission.
- 2.Use the private upgrade link shown after the submission is saved.
- 3.Complete secure Stripe checkout.
- 4.A human checks the draft before the private report is delivered.
Delivery timing is not currently a fixed service-level promise. The report is delivered privately after the human check is complete.
What it is not
A Fresh Eyes Report is private first-impression feedback. It is not a formal UX audit, technical audit, security audit, growth consultation, investment advice, market sizing exercise, or paid public placement.
Public Project Notes are curated separately. The report does not buy favorable language or a better editorial position.
Start with the free path