Designing Something We’d Actually Trust

Trust is easy to talk about and hard to earn.

Most systems claim to be fair. Very few are designed to be. The difference usually shows up in the details — in the incentives, the shortcuts, and the exceptions that quietly creep in over time.

When we started shaping Support Independents, we used a simple test: would we trust this if we were on the other side of it?

That question ruled out a lot of things early on. Complex scoring systems. Preferential treatment. “Helpful” boosts that quietly favour some over others. Anything that needed a long explanation to justify why it was fair.

What we were left with was something simpler — and more demanding.

If everyone starts on equal footing, the system has to stand on its own logic. If visibility can’t be bought, the experience has to feel worthwhile without manipulation. And if trust is the goal, transparency has to be built in from the start, not added later.

Designing something we’d actually trust means accepting fewer shortcuts. But it also means building something that doesn’t need defending.

That trade-off felt worth making.

From Idea to Intention

:Agreeing the concept…

 

The idea didn’t arrive fully formed.

Like most worthwhile things, it started as a conversation — about what feels broken, what feels forced, and what we’ve personally stopped trusting.

We talked about discovery. About how often we now second-guess what we’re shown. About how hard it’s become to tell whether something is genuinely recommended, or simply promoted well. And about how that affects smaller, independent places most of all.

At some point, the conversation shifted from complaining to deciding.

The key decision was this: if we were going to build anything at all, it had to be something we would personally trust. No hidden mechanics. No advantages you could buy your way into. No clever language masking unequal outcomes.

That decision sounds obvious. It isn’t.

Once you commit to fairness, a lot of common options fall away very quickly. But that clarity is what turned a loose idea into an intentional concept.

Not bigger. Not faster. Just more honest.

Why Support Independents Exists

Support Independents exists because something important has been lost in the way we discover places.

Finding good food used to feel human. You heard about somewhere from a friend, noticed a queue, followed a recommendation that felt personal. Over time, that’s been replaced by rankings, ads, and systems that reward whoever can pay the most to be seen.

That shift didn’t just change how people choose where to eat — it changed who gets discovered at all.

We didn’t set out to build another platform, marketplace, or review site. We set out to question a pattern that no longer felt right: good places being buried, not because they weren’t good enough, but because they weren’t loud enough.

This has even stretched to YouTube, with so called reviewers “honestly” talking about food that they are being paid to eat. So, are they reviews or paid ad slots?

Support Independents exists to explore a different approach. One that values fairness, curiosity, and trust over visibility hacks. One where discovery feels natural again, and where support actually means something.

This isn’t about fixing everything. It’s about doing one thing thoughtfully, and doing it properly.