WIO

chatgpt

SOFTWARE_SERVICE

Evidence in r/startups — Startups

Trend support

Rising+0.5 pp
Current seven-day window
Current 2026-10-08 → 2026-10-14
Comparison seven-day window
Comparison 2026-10-01 → 2026-10-07
Distinct-document support
Seen in 11 current vs 5 comparison posts/comments
Mentions
14 current vs 5 mentions

Windows are complete UTC days compared with the preceding seven. How trends are measured.

Also Mentioned 44 times in the most-discussed range 2026-09-15 → 2026-10-15 — frequency, not a trend.

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-10-14

Final complete day: 2026-10-14. Attention was 1.3% — this entity appeared in 11 of 883 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (14 mentions).

0%2.0%Jul 17Aug 30Oct 14

Hover, touch, or focus the chart (Tab) and use the arrow keys — each point is one seven-day window.

View all 90 data points (semantic table)
Week endingSeven-day rangeStatusPrevalenceSeen inMentionsAnalyzed
2026-07-172026-07-11 → 2026-07-17Comparable0.0%0 of 1,35301,353
2026-07-182026-07-12 → 2026-07-18Comparable0.0%0 of 1,47401,474
2026-07-192026-07-13 → 2026-07-19Comparable0.0%0 of 1,49301,493
2026-07-202026-07-14 → 2026-07-20Comparable0.2%3 of 1,50231,502
2026-07-212026-07-15 → 2026-07-21Comparable0.2%3 of 1,78631,786
2026-07-222026-07-16 → 2026-07-22Comparable0.2%3 of 1,70231,702
2026-07-232026-07-17 → 2026-07-23Comparable0.3%5 of 1,81151,811
2026-07-242026-07-18 → 2026-07-24Comparable0.3%5 of 1,77751,777
2026-07-252026-07-19 → 2026-07-25Comparable0.3%5 of 1,63751,637
2026-07-262026-07-20 → 2026-07-26Comparable0.3%5 of 1,71351,713
2026-07-272026-07-21 → 2026-07-27Comparable0.1%2 of 1,69021,690
2026-07-282026-07-22 → 2026-07-28Comparable0.1%2 of 1,40921,409
2026-07-292026-07-23 → 2026-07-29Comparable0.1%2 of 1,38821,388
2026-07-302026-07-24 → 2026-07-30Comparable0.0%0 of 1,30701,307
2026-07-312026-07-25 → 2026-07-31Comparable0.1%1 of 1,40411,404
2026-08-012026-07-26 → 2026-08-01Comparable0.1%1 of 1,43311,433
2026-08-022026-07-27 → 2026-08-02Comparable0.1%1 of 1,36311,363
2026-08-032026-07-28 → 2026-08-03Comparable0.1%1 of 1,34611,346
2026-08-042026-07-29 → 2026-08-04Comparable0.1%1 of 1,46411,464
2026-08-052026-07-30 → 2026-08-05Comparable0.1%1 of 1,49611,496
2026-08-062026-07-31 → 2026-08-06Comparable0.1%1 of 1,74411,744
2026-08-072026-08-01 → 2026-08-07Comparable0.0%0 of 1,59701,597
2026-08-082026-08-02 → 2026-08-08Comparable0.0%0 of 1,44301,443
2026-08-092026-08-03 → 2026-08-09Comparable0.0%0 of 1,27801,278
2026-08-102026-08-04 → 2026-08-10Comparable0.0%0 of 1,10901,109
2026-08-112026-08-05 → 2026-08-11Comparable0.0%0 of 8510851
2026-08-122026-08-06 → 2026-08-12Comparable0.0%0 of 5610561
2026-08-132026-08-07 → 2026-08-13Low coverage——091
2026-08-142026-08-08 → 2026-08-14Low coverage——00
2026-08-152026-08-09 → 2026-08-15Low coverage——00
2026-08-162026-08-10 → 2026-08-16Low coverage——00
2026-08-172026-08-11 → 2026-08-17Low coverage——00
2026-08-182026-08-12 → 2026-08-18Low coverage——00
2026-08-192026-08-13 → 2026-08-19Low coverage——00
2026-08-202026-08-14 → 2026-08-20Low coverage——00
2026-08-212026-08-15 → 2026-08-21Low coverage——00
2026-08-222026-08-16 → 2026-08-22Low coverage——00
2026-08-232026-08-17 → 2026-08-23Low coverage——00
2026-08-242026-08-18 → 2026-08-24Low coverage——087
2026-08-252026-08-19 → 2026-08-25Comparable0.0%0 of 2560256
2026-08-262026-08-20 → 2026-08-26Comparable0.0%0 of 4780478
2026-08-272026-08-21 → 2026-08-27Comparable0.0%0 of 6530653
2026-08-282026-08-22 → 2026-08-28Comparable0.0%0 of 7300730
2026-08-292026-08-23 → 2026-08-29Comparable0.0%0 of 8870887
2026-08-302026-08-24 → 2026-08-30Comparable0.0%0 of 1,04401,044
2026-08-312026-08-25 → 2026-08-31Comparable0.0%0 of 1,08301,083
2026-09-012026-08-26 → 2026-09-01Comparable0.1%1 of 1,04511,045
2026-09-022026-08-27 → 2026-09-02Comparable0.1%1 of 8901890
2026-09-032026-08-28 → 2026-09-03Comparable0.1%1 of 8501850
2026-09-042026-08-29 → 2026-09-04Comparable0.2%2 of 8933893
2026-09-052026-08-30 → 2026-09-05Comparable0.2%2 of 8493849
2026-09-062026-08-31 → 2026-09-06Comparable0.2%2 of 8193819
2026-09-072026-09-01 → 2026-09-07Comparable0.2%2 of 9363936
2026-09-082026-09-02 → 2026-09-08Comparable0.2%2 of 9933993
2026-09-092026-09-03 → 2026-09-09Comparable0.3%3 of 1,05451,054
2026-09-102026-09-04 → 2026-09-10Comparable0.3%3 of 1,03451,034
2026-09-112026-09-05 → 2026-09-11Comparable0.2%2 of 9833983
2026-09-122026-09-06 → 2026-09-12Comparable0.2%2 of 1,03031,030
2026-09-132026-09-07 → 2026-09-13Comparable0.2%2 of 1,03431,034
2026-09-142026-09-08 → 2026-09-14Comparable0.2%2 of 9483948
2026-09-152026-09-09 → 2026-09-15Comparable0.1%1 of 9072907
2026-09-162026-09-10 → 2026-09-16Comparable0.1%1 of 9062906
2026-09-172026-09-11 → 2026-09-17Comparable0.2%2 of 1,00131,001
2026-09-182026-09-12 → 2026-09-18Comparable0.3%3 of 1,07741,077
2026-09-192026-09-13 → 2026-09-19Comparable0.3%3 of 1,01741,017
2026-09-202026-09-14 → 2026-09-20Comparable0.5%5 of 1,02191,021
2026-09-212026-09-15 → 2026-09-21Comparable0.5%5 of 9959995
2026-09-222026-09-16 → 2026-09-22Comparable0.5%5 of 9909990
2026-09-232026-09-17 → 2026-09-23Comparable0.4%4 of 9747974
2026-09-242026-09-18 → 2026-09-24Comparable0.3%3 of 9026902
2026-09-252026-09-19 → 2026-09-25Comparable0.2%2 of 9225922
2026-09-262026-09-20 → 2026-09-26Comparable0.2%2 of 8875887
2026-09-272026-09-21 → 2026-09-27Comparable0.0%0 of 8120812
2026-09-282026-09-22 → 2026-09-28Comparable0.1%1 of 7441744
2026-09-292026-09-23 → 2026-09-29Comparable0.4%3 of 7843784
2026-09-302026-09-24 → 2026-09-30Comparable0.4%3 of 8143814
2026-10-012026-09-25 → 2026-10-01Comparable0.4%3 of 8683868
2026-10-022026-09-26 → 2026-10-02Comparable0.4%3 of 8443844
2026-10-032026-09-27 → 2026-10-03Comparable0.5%4 of 8424842
2026-10-042026-09-28 → 2026-10-04Comparable0.8%7 of 8517851
2026-10-052026-09-29 → 2026-10-05Comparable0.7%6 of 8706870
2026-10-062026-09-30 → 2026-10-06Comparable0.7%5 of 7715771
2026-10-072026-10-01 → 2026-10-07Comparable0.7%5 of 6835683
2026-10-082026-10-02 → 2026-10-08Comparable1.8%10 of 57313573
2026-10-092026-10-03 → 2026-10-09Comparable2.0%10 of 49213492
2026-10-102026-10-04 → 2026-10-10Comparable1.6%9 of 54812548
2026-10-112026-10-05 → 2026-10-11Comparable1.4%9 of 62612626
2026-10-122026-10-06 → 2026-10-12Comparable1.4%10 of 70613706
2026-10-132026-10-07 → 2026-10-13Comparable1.3%10 of 77013770
2026-10-142026-10-08 → 2026-10-14Comparable1.3%11 of 88314883

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

  1. Post

    My PM quit after 3 weeks, now wants back on better terms and I feel uneasy. Rehire him or go with the runner-up? (I will not promote) - Quick note: English isn’t my first language, so I used AI to help me write this post in clear English. The situation, the details and the dilemma are all mine. I’m the founder/CEO of a \~10-year-old, profitable legal-tech SaaS in Mexico (small team: tech lead, 4 devs, QA, plus an offshore dev team in India that we coordinate with mostly in writing, in English). I’ve been looking for a Senior PM for months and I’m stuck between two options. **Candidate A: the one who left** * Hired him in August after a long process. Strong profile: 6 years as Senior PM at a well-known fintech, technical background, C1 English. My tech lead picked him over the other finalists. * In his 3 weeks he wrote our product methodology, which we still use. * Then he quit for an outside offer paying 30 to 40% more. No performance or culture issues. * A few weeks later he came back asking to return as a contractor (invoicing instead of payroll), which gives him more net income. My accountant says the tax side is fine. For me, the cost is a bit lower because I would pay less taxes. * I told him: same role, same responsibilities, only the payment method changes. * He drafted the contract himself. It came back slightly above that number, written as “the amount we agreed” (we hadn’t). It also includes a guaranteed annual bonus of 2 monthly fees even if no goals are set, accumulating time off, freedom to take other clients, confidentiality limited to 5 years, a liability cap, an automatic fee increase if tax law changes, and an option to move to payroll later with seniority recognized from the contract start. * Every ambiguous point is resolved in his favor. Nothing outrageous on its own, but it feels like a pattern. **How I feel about A** * I’m uncomfortable, maybe a bit annoyed. The amount isn’t a big difference, but it’s not what we discussed, and it was presented as if we had agreed on it. * He also wrote that he’ll work “with no fixed schedule.” I know that’s standard for contractors, but my gut says it’s more about his convenience than about following the law. * My real fear is that he’s someone who will always be asking for more. * Part of me still prefers him, because he’s the most capable option. But after he left once, I don’t think I’d feel at ease with him, and I can’t tell whether that’s a fair signal or just my ego. * I haven’t talked to him about the draft yet. I keep putting it off. **Candidate B: the runner-up** * 9 years in product across 5 startups, strong with data and SQL, has done some specific scraping (very close to what we do). Comfortable with our pay range and says money isn’t what moves him, though one past job change was partly for money. * He’s authentic: what he says in interviews matches what he writes, and he’s transparent about how he uses AI. * My tech lead’s read: “he lacks authority.” When pushed back on, he gives in quickly. His follow-up with developers sounds more like tracking than driving. * English: weak when speaking. His written test without tools had many errors (around B1). With ChatGPT the output was clean and professional. Our offshore coordination is mostly written. * In both versions of the test he missed a key operational step that was the core of his own case study. * He’s in another process and will follow up next week. **My dilemma** * On capability, A wins: zero ramp-up, authority with the team, real English. * On trust, B wins: no maneuvering, plain payroll, no contractor-reclassification risk. * My unease about A might be the most important data point here, or it might be noise. I can’t tell which. **Questions** 1. Would you rehire someone who left after 3 weeks for money and came back negotiating hard? Is a self-serving contract draft a red flag or just normal negotiation? 2. How much should a founder’s gut feeling weigh when the stronger candidate on paper makes you uneasy? 3. How much does “lacks authority” matter for a PM working with a small team and an offshore dev team? 4. For written async coordination, is “B1 English plus AI tools” good enough in practice? 5. Is there an option I’m not seeing? **TL;DR:** My Senior PM quit after 3 weeks for a 30 to 40% better offer. Now he wants to come back as a contractor, and the contract he drafted tilts every gray area in his favor (however, this new scenario is cheaper for me). On paper he's the stronger candidate, but I feel uneasy and a bit annoyed, and I'm afraid he'll always be asking for more. The alternative is a runner-up who is honest and easy to trust, but my tech lead says he lacks authority, and his written English is around B1 without AI tools. Proven capability vs. trust: which would you pick, and is there an option I'm missing?

  2. Comment

    not sure about that anymore to be honest. i think the question now becomes, who do you sell to? humans or agents? because i feel like we are starting to sell to agents. For example, I run a large beauty hub and i see tons of traffic coming from chatGPT, organic. I have been building for some time now and yes, we basically needed to optimise for humans but that era is gone i think

  3. Comment

    We sell into a tiny, conservative B2B niche too. Our first 5,10 came almost entirely from C + B: warm intros from advisors/customers, then stacking meetings at 2 industry events where we pre-booked as many “quick coffee?” chats as possible. What surprised me: 3 actually mattered earlier than I expected. We tracked “recommended by ChatGPT/Claude/Perplexity” and citation sources via seoforgpt, then wrote super-specific comparison / “how to choose X” pages. That started showing up in AI answers and created a trickle of very qualified inbound.

  4. Comment

    Everyone is about to reach their dreams with their ChatGPT/Claude sub.

  5. Comment

    We do a light “competitor week” twice a year, then just monitor a few things ongoing. For AI SEO / where they’re showing up in ChatGPT/Perplexity, I use seoforgpt to see which prompts they’re getting recommended on and what sources those answers cite, then back into their content / PR / events from that. For socials, ads, etc. it’s honestly a Notion table + manual checks; anything more complex turned into busywork.

Excerpts above are public Reddit posts and comments. WIO never synthesizes Reddit URLs from stored ids, and entities are extracted automatically and may be wrong. See the extraction notes and the limitations and privacy section of the methodology.