Retention > Hype: What Are We Really Chasing as Builders?
We talk about growth like it’s supposed to be loud — installs, spikes, upvotes, MRR.
But the moments that actually stay with us are strangely quiet.
Like when someone comes back to your product without any nudge.
No launch. No promo. No trick.
Just a person returning because what you built genuinely helped them.
And honestly… that moment hits deeper than any viral day ever will.
It made me stop and wonder:
Are we truly chasing numbers… or are we chasing that feeling of creating something that matters?
I’ve been building Showesome and every time I see someone return to use it again, I feel this quiet sense of pride.
Not because of “growth,” but because this little tool is slowly becoming useful in real people’s lives.
We say we want growth…
but maybe what many indie hackers really want is meaning.
Not metrics, but proof that our hours didn’t disappear into the void.
Maybe the real milestone isn’t installs or revenue —
maybe it’s that subtle emotional moment when your product quietly earns its place in someone’s workflow.
So I’m curious:
What matters more to you — the numbers, the money,
or the feeling that you built something people actually come back to?
The idea of “quiet validation” really hits. Someone coming back without a prompt feels deeper than any spike. Numbers matter, but that moment is what keeps me building.
I'd love to explore or read a specific article about real validation and not just metrics and the stuff we were told to work.
Same here. Real validation feels less about metrics and more about quiet, repeated behavior. Those moments say a lot more than dashboards early on.
Exactly 🙂 That quiet return says so much more than a noisy spike. It’s that moment when you realize something you built actually earned a place in someone’s workflow — and that’s incredibly motivating as a builder.
Well said. That’s the moment where it stops feeling like an experiment and starts feeling like something real.
The funny part is how subtle it is no notification, no metric spike but it changes how you look at the work you’re doing.
Agree, those small signs can give some small confirmation that the product is useful! But i would rather get those loud spikes! They send the real volume you need and if after that no one is coming back you know enough.
I get that. Loud spikes are definitely informative — they tell you fast whether there’s any pull at all.
For me though, the small repeat moments are what tell me why someone would stay once the noise fades.
I think both signals matter — spikes for direction, retention for conviction.
Honestly the thing that keeps me going is watching how people actually use what I've built vs what I thought they would use. There's always this gap between your vision and their reality.
Had a user recently tell me they'd been using a feature I almost cut because I thought nobody cared about it. Turns out it was the reason they stuck around.
The numbers tell you if something's working. But watching people come back tells you why it matters. Both are useful but only one keeps you from burning out.
Yes — that gap is real, and honestly a gift if you pay attention to it.
Amazing how often the thing we almost remove ends up being the reason someone stays.
I think that “why it matters” insight is what keeps a lot of us from burning out.
I can appreciate that. I was really excited when my client got her dream job and got paid 50% more than her last job. She found her voice. She got to be herself in the best way.
I love this. That kind of transformation is exactly the kind of “signal” numbers will never capture.
When your work helps someone become more themselves, it’s hard not to feel like it matters.
This really resonates.
The loud moments feel good — the spikes, the launch highs, the dashboards turning green — but they fade fast.
What doesn’t fade is seeing someone return on a random Tuesday with zero prompting. That’s the kind of validation you can’t fake.
I’ve noticed the same while building my own product: retention feels like a quiet handshake between you and the user — a subtle “hey, this helps me.” It’s not viral, but it’s real.
At the end of the day, numbers are goals… but retention is meaning.
It’s the closest thing we get to proof that we’re not just building for ourselves.
Great post, Alma.
Love this. It’s funny how building teaches you to pay attention to the smallest signals.
The big moments are obvious, but it’s the subtle patterns that actually guide what to work on next.
Appreciate you sharing your perspective
What I've learned: retention isn't about features or even user happiness. It's about habit formation and perceived switching cost.
At Atlassian (worked there for some time, leading global CS teams), we found that users who hit specific activation milestones in the first 14 days retained at 3x the rate. The product was the same - what mattered was the behavior pattern.
The uncomfortable truth: most indie products don't have a retention problem. They have an activation problem. Users churn because they never truly started using the product, not because they tried it and left.
The "hype vs. retention" framing might be missing the point. Hype can drive signups, but without activation, those signups are just noise in your metrics.
What's your activation story look like? That's usually where the real insight is hiding.
To answer your question directly: the feeling. Numbers are lagging indicators. The moment someone comes back unprompted is a leading indicator that you're onto something real.
What I find interesting is how this maps to product strategy. Chasing hype often leads to building features that look good in demos but don't stick. Chasing retention forces you to solve actual problems, even boring ones.
The hard part is that retention is invisible for a long time. It takes discipline to keep polishing when there's no visible spike to celebrate. But that patience is probably what separates products that last from products that launch.
This is beautifully put. You captured exactly what I was trying to articulate — numbers trail behind behavior, and unprompted return is the first real signal that something works.
I also really like how you frame retention as a strategy constraint. It quietly forces you to deal with real, sometimes boring problems instead of demo-friendly ones. And you’re right — the invisible phase is the hardest part. Polishing without applause takes a different kind of discipline, but it’s usually where the foundations are built.
Appreciate the kind words. "Polishing without applause" is a perfect way to put it.
The invisible phase is uncomfortable because there's no external validation loop. You're working on faith that the compound interest will eventually show up in the numbers. But you're right - that's where the foundation gets built.
The strategy constraint framing is interesting too. Retention-first thinking automatically filters out vanity features because you're constantly asking "will this make someone come back?" instead of "will this look impressive?"
This really resonates.
Early on, it’s tempting to chase the loud signals because they’re measurable and validating.
But the quiet moments — someone returning with no push — are usually where real product-market fit starts to reveal itself.
I’ve found that when you optimize for genuine usefulness first, the numbers tend to follow later — not the other way around.