[jonathanjaeger]

Yes I agree that this data is better to have than to not have. A savvy investor can use this as a starting point for their own research, I was just worried at the framing of the posts ranking companies (in the past based off of alexa mostly and now off of other metrics such as likes, follows, tweets).

A couple examples to play devil's advocate even when discussing consumer startups against other consumer startups: 1) The social media startup that relies on spammy incentives to retweet or like something. 2) The ecommerce startup that relies on free giveaways or hefty price cuts to get people to tweet or post deals that are not sustainable from a business perspective.

Unless there are other signals that you can combine with this data, in many instances it can be deceiving. Like I said, the data can still be a great starting point because you at least see the data ranked with the names of the startups and then can investigate those startups closer from other perspectives.

[dmor]

At the end of the day investors still need to meet with founders and do their diligence, but I believe we may be able to bring attention to good companies that are not spammy or dishonest but also don't get a lot of press, attention, etc.

Within Mattermark Pro investors can filter by stage, vertical, business model, geography and many other factors to create useful comparisons between companies... Mattermark scores for B2B companies are quite meaningful when comparing apples to apples. I know it is painful to judge and be judged in this ecosystem, but I hope people will see that we are blogging about interesting stuff that others aren't covering and bringing more transparency and information symmetry than before.