I kept bookmarking reddit posts where people described problems worth solving - "I wish this existed," tool requests, workflow complaints. But I never had a systematic way to decide which ones were actually worth pursuing. So I built a scoring system.

Eight factors: problem severity, ICP clarity, willingness to pay, competition gap, wedge clarity, distribution feasibility, defensibility, and execution feasibility. Each scores 1-3, then I convert to a 1-10 overall score. Dealbreakers (like no willingness to pay signals + mild problem) force an automatic Skip regardless of total.

Every evaluation quotes directly from the original source. If evidence is missing, I say so. Most ideas get rejected. My default stance is skepticism. I can't build all of these myself, so I'm publishing them at justbuildthis.com as a backlog for anyone looking for validated starting points.

Curious what you think:

- Does this scoring approach make sense? Am I weighting the right factors?

- How do you decide which ideas are worth pursuing?

- What signals do you look for?