Build in public without playing the engagement game

"Build in public" started as a simple, good idea: share what you're making while you make it, and let people follow along. Somewhere along the way, a lot of builders started to dread it.

When someone asked Hacker News whether they liked the #BuildInPublic culture, the replies split. Some loved the transparency and the shared learning. Others said it had turned into a marketing strategy, full of trendy hooks, emoji-heavy threads and posts written for the algorithm rather than for people. One commenter said they used to love it, until it filled up with people using it for cynical marketing.

Both sides have a point. So here's how to keep the good part and skip the rest.

Why it starts to feel wrong

The incentives point at attention, not progress. Most social platforms reward whatever gets reactions. A post that says "comment YES and I'll send you my template" will usually beat a post that says "shipped our billing page, here's what broke." So people drift toward the first kind, even if they started out doing the second.

It quietly becomes a second job. A recurring worry is that building in public turns into content production: daily threads, polished screenshots, growth hacks. Time spent writing about the work is time not spent doing it.

It rewards the loud, not the good. Follower count becomes the scoreboard. A quiet builder who ships every week can be invisible next to someone with a big audience and a small product.

What the useful version looks like

The same threads were clear about what people do like:

• Changelogs written as you go. Short notes on what changed and why. Developers in the thread said this is the content they actually want to read.
• Asking your users what's next. Polls and questions that let people shape the product are building in public in the best sense.
• Real numbers and real failures. "Tried X, it didn't work, here's what we learned" teaches people something. It's also the most trustworthy kind of post.
• Specific over clever. A screenshot of the thing working beats a thread about "10 lessons from building."

How to keep it from taking over

• Pick a cadence you can keep. Weekly is plenty. A short Friday update of what shipped, what's next and one thing you learned does most of the work.
• Write for the people already using your product, not for the algorithm. If it would help a customer, post it. If it only helps your follower count, skip it.
• Measure what matters. Track signups, replies and customer conversations, not likes. Someone in a 2026 thread about getting traction as an indie dev made the same point: talking to people directly beats broadcasting.
• Let the work be the proof. A shipped feature, a launched product and a real milestone carry more weight than any number of posts about them.

Getting noticed for what you ship

The deeper problem is that most networks rank people by engagement, not output. That's why a builder with three launched products can be less visible than someone who posts motivational threads.

We're building The Build Nation the other way round. Profiles show proof of work (launched products, milestones and the meetups people actually show up to) instead of likes or follower counts. It's free during the open beta. Whatever you use, the principle is the same: share the work, not the performance of working.