@rrhoover Great question Ryan. Depends on what users want!

We originally did have reviews possible, but we struggled to get that flywheel kickstarted, so removed it and purely focused on discovery now.

A calendar function makes sense too, and We'll add it when it makes sense - we also originally had a feature called HelloFellow which would facilitate chats between course applicants and alumni (like what I built for On Deck here: https://www.producthunt.com/prod...) but again struggled with the flywheel.

@chezspigelman Excellent blog post and appreciate your message here. I want to humbly posit that saying “It’s a bit of a hype term” while totally fair is also counter-productive. :) We know its a hype term; we created it. However, I’ve seen terms like this go one of two ways: 1) They become powerful over time and help outsiders and newcomers accept and understand a new concept. This has happened with many words such as “ridesharing,” “cloud computing,” “web3,” etc. These terms started as hype terms and ended up becoming industry standard terms. This is the holy grail, because it helps an industry go from a nascent, ragtag group to a big industry. It often is the case that the people INSIDE hate the term - certainly web3 has its fair share of detractors - but the term is necessary so outsiders can benefit from the linguistic value of having ONE term to explain a new concept. 2) They become less powerful over time and are eventually abandoned. This happened to “growth hacking” which I was a part of. The term “growth hacking” truly sucks - so that is probably part of the reason it eventually failed. However, I’d also say that insiders completely abandoned and demeaned the term in public (similar to what you’ve done here) and it hurt an entire industry of new types of marketers. Whether you agree or disagree with growth hacking as a concept, one can divorce themselves from their personal beliefs on the concept and agree that the term failed its purpose and did not end up becoming an industry standard. Today, marketing is a mishmash of many different types of marketers (content marketers, paid marketers, brand marketers) but there is no good term for “growth product marketers” and that is unfortunate for those people who want to be “growth hackers” since its quite a useful hire for a lot of companies imho.

I get the self-deprecating and humble way that one might have said “It’s a bit of a hype term” but I would encourage you - as someone who is publicly writing about and promoting CBC’s, that you simply adopt the term and accept it for all its flaws and benefits.

Apologies for the unsolicited comment but I love what you’re doing and hope we can turn CBC’s into a real term that L&D experts use when buying courses, that employees use when describing courses to their bosses or that course managers use when talking about their expertise in helping operationalize courses. That’s the goal and thanks for all that you’re doing to help with it!

@gagan_biyani Thanks, Gagan. You deserve much of the credit for the innovation in this space and you’re a genuine inspiration - I welcome the comment.

I get where you’re coming from regarding the term and I agree. Perhaps because I’m in the weeds researching CBC’s (mainly on Twitter naturally, I noticed that people were becoming disillusioned with the term, from two distinct points of view:

1- People from traditional education, who cannot understand what makes a CBC different to a regular course taught by a professor, and

2- Online natives who suddenly found every creator and influencer promoting their CBC, especially in formats where the term isn’t applicable (e.g. https://twitter.com/IshBaid/stat... among many).

Because the Product Hunt audience is presumably from that second cohort (excuse the pun), I hedged on the terminology.

But ultimately I agree with you 100% - it’s excellent branding, an ideal way to educate those in the L&D space, and I definitely plan on using the term in a positive, inevitably default, way.