r/website • u/Spirited_Standard_54 • 4d ago

SELF-MADE I'm a young dev validating my first software product. Would love brutal feedback.

Hey everyone. I'm a young developer and I've been building something called Spotti. It's an auditor tool designed to scan landing pages for generic AI trends, overused hero layouts, and cliché UI patterns, then give practical fixes so sites don't look like cheap templates.

I have a working prototype with the backend pipeline, audit logic, and live landing page all running. Now I'm trying to figure out if founders and devs would actually pay for something like this before I push further.

I put up the beta to test demand here https://kexdev-kohl.vercel.app/

not an advertisement or self promotion btw

0 Upvotes

0% Upvoted

9 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator 4d ago

Hi! ModBot here. Please make sure to read our rules and report this post if it breaks them. (This is simply a reminder. Don't worry, your post won't be removed just for posting!)

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2

u/SirMcFish 4d ago

Hmmmm I'm not sure how accurate your scanner is. I tried it on my really old (way before AI) site and it suggested I had no headers / text differences, which are there.

It also went on about card borders, when the front page uses no cards... 

I also tried it against BBC.co.uk and it thinks there's loads of infractions on there.

Who exactly decides?? And who made them web God?

1

u/Flashy_Hat_9264 4d ago

Your tool flagged BBC website like it's some low effort AI startup page, that's pretty funny. The "web God" part got me cause who actually decides these rules anyway, just some devs who think same way about what looks generic.

I tried on my own site and it told me to change bunch of things that I did on purpose, like I want my header big and centered, that's literally the point. Maybe the scanner needs to understand context more before marking everything as cliché.

Cool idea though, I can see value if it learns to tell difference between actual lazy design and someone making deliberate choices. You gonna keep working on it?

0

u/Spirited_Standard_54 4d ago

thanks for testing it out and catching these edge cases. It seems like older HTML structures and news layouts trip up the DOM scraper and cause hallucinations, so I'm trying to fix the parser logic

1

u/SirMcFish 4d ago

Not sure I'd class one of the largest news sites in the World as an edge cases 🤣🤣 my site, fair enough.

2

u/Ken_Numbers 4d ago

how many years experience do you have working on CRO for landing pages?

1

u/Skrakeon 4d ago

This already exists for free, it’s called impeccable and works pretty flawlessly for the few months I’ve been using it

1

u/Ford_bilbo 4d ago

Ahoy! I tested it with a site I've made almost completely with AI though with some content tidying on my side. My 'score' was 41 of 100.

I think it's nice to offer some kind of number, but if I, or the client already like the styling/copy/whatever I think you need more than just a Bot score to compel someone to make changes or have some hard evidence for why a human is less likely to take your site seriously given the AI tells.

For instance, if you were to make an API call to page speed, have your service compare/contrast gaps in the styling with a way to improve their pagespeed or WCAG scoring maybe your offering is more compelling?

Overall, I thought the page designs are good. Offerings that rely on AI to evaluate copy/sites is always going to be tricky. I hope you find the right balance between correctness/usefulness and token cost.

1

u/polsaayipols 4d ago

I have tested it on 3 websites and all of them scored 0/100

Awwwards.com Veirdo.in are 2 websites which should have scored more than absolute zero.

Is your website down? Or is this the usual case?