Unpopular opinion: you probably don't need to launch everywhere

I've been researching startup launch platforms and looking at 70+ different places founders can launch products.

My conclusion so far:

More submissions ≠ better launch.

It's tempting to create a giant spreadsheet and submit your product to every launch board, directory, community, and discovery site you can find.

But I think that's often the wrong optimization.

Imagine you're launching a developer tool.

You could spend two days submitting it to 30 generic sites.

Or you could spend those two days finding 3 communities where developers who actually have the problem hang out.

The second approach may produce fewer visitors but much better users.

I think launch channels should be evaluated based on the job you're trying to accomplish:

Need feedback?
Find people who understand the problem.

Need early adopters?
Find communities with strong audience intent.

Need launch-day attention?
Consider launch boards.

Need long-term discovery?
Look at evergreen platforms.

Need developer adoption?
Go where developers already spend time.

Need pre-launch validation?
Build the waitlist first.

That's the thinking behind a project I've been working on called Best Launch Platforms.

It's an independent research site comparing 70+ launch channels across things like reach, intent, fairness, evergreen value, AI visibility, and ease.

But I'm much more interested in the discussion than the rankings.

What's your launch strategy?

Do you try to maximize the number of places you submit to, or do you focus on a handful of high-intent channels?

And what's one launch platform you'd recommend that most indie hackers overlook?