Get Featured & Publish Press Release
On HackerNoon

What Is HackerNoon?

HackerNoon is an independent technology publication at hackernoon.com where software engineers, technical founders and people who build things for a living read and write about how systems actually work. It carries a Domain Authority of 90 and draws 12M+ monthly visits, which makes it one of the larger technology titles operating without a media group behind it. It grew up as a Medium publication and later moved onto software its own team built, a piece of history the audience remembers and one that explains much of the tone of the place. Most of what appears on it comes from outside contributors rather than a newsroom of staff reporters, so for a company shipping infrastructure, developer tools, AI systems or hardware it is one of the few large properties where an announcement can carry real implementation detail without being cut for length.

A publication built by the people it publishes

Most technology sections belong to general news organizations whose editorial instinct is to translate technology for a lay reader. HackerNoon runs the other direction. Its long-running tagline about how hackers start their afternoons sets the register: the reader already knows what a queue is, what a cold start costs and why your migration was hard. Stories are tagged by technology rather than sorted into business verticals, so a piece about a database engine sits on the same tag page as other database writing rather than beside quarterly earnings. Bylines belong to practitioners writing about work they did, which means your announcement is read next to first-person engineering accounts and is compared to them.

How stories are presented to the reader

Articles carry an author-written summary at the top, an estimated reading time, technology tags, and reading options that include audio playback and alternate colour and font modes. Two of those features change how you should write. The summary is what appears on tag pages and in link previews, so it is read in isolation by someone deciding whether to open the piece at all, and a summary saying a company is pleased to announce a solution burns that decision immediately. The audio option means your sentences may be heard rather than scanned, and clause-stacked marketing prose falls apart when it is read aloud.

Why the domain carries weight in search

A Domain Authority of 90 with 12M+ monthly visits means pages on the domain are crawled quickly, indexed reliably and treated as credible for technology terms. Because the archive is dense with contributor-written explainers on frameworks, protocols and language internals, the domain is already associated with that vocabulary, and a page about your product tends to surface when someone searches your product name alongside a technical term rather than your brand name alone.

The Reader You Are Writing For

You are writing for a working technical person who evaluates claims the way they evaluate a pull request: by looking for what is missing. On a contributor-run publication a large share of those readers have published here themselves, so they know what an honest engineering write-up looks like from the inside and they recognise the shape of one that has had its substance removed.

The reader scans for the specific before reading the general

Most technical readers work through an article in the same order. They scan for the concrete artifacts first: numbers, version identifiers, architecture descriptions, code blocks, error conditions, limits. Only after finding one do they go back and read the prose around it. The site's own furniture encourages it, since the summary and reading time let someone decide in advance how much attention the piece deserves. An announcement that front-loads positioning and defers the specifics to a closing paragraph gets scanned, found empty and closed.

Builders, not buyers

The audience skews toward the person who will implement your product rather than the person who signs the purchase order, and that reader has different questions. Not what business outcome does this drive, but what does it run on, what does it break, how do I remove it if the decision was wrong, what is the data model, does it work behind a proxy, what happens at scale. They also tend to arrive sideways, from a technology tag page or a search for the problem rather than from a homepage or a newsletter about your industry, which means they meet your announcement with no prior interest in your company at all.

Why marketing language reads as a warning sign

Phrases like seamless, robust, cutting-edge and industry-leading signal that the writer either does not understand the system or is hiding something about it, because vagueness in a description usually tracks vagueness in the product. The useful rule: if a sentence stays true with a competitor's name swapped in, delete it and write the sentence only your company could write.

A culture that rewards being honest about limits

Builder culture treats admitted trade-offs as evidence of competence rather than weakness. A company that says its system is fast for append-heavy workloads and slower on random reads sounds like a company that measured it. A company that says its system is simply faster sounds like one that did not. Naming the case where your product is the wrong choice is the most credibility-positive sentence available to a technical announcement, and it is the sentence company drafts most often leave out.

What Counts as a Technology Story Here

A technology story works here when a reader learns something from it even if they never touch your product. The tag system enforces that bar without anyone intending to: your announcement lands on the same technology tag as independent write-ups by engineers who ran the thing in production, and it is read directly against them.

The transferable-knowledge test

Ask what a reader takes away if they finish your piece and immediately forget your company name. If the answer is nothing, the announcement is an advertisement in the shape of an article. If the answer is a benchmark methodology, an architectural pattern, a constraint they had not considered, a failure mode they now recognize, or a number that recalibrates their expectations, you have a story, and your product appears as the reason that knowledge exists rather than as the subject.

Announcements that already carry technical weight

• A release that changes a performance characteristic in a way you can quantify, with the workload described
• An open source project, SDK or client library going public, with the license named and the repository reachable
• An API or protocol change that affects how other engineers integrate, including what breaks and what is deprecated
• A rewrite or migration where the reasons, the trade-offs and the things that went wrong are described honestly
• Original measurement from inside your infrastructure that answers a question engineers argue about
• A security fix, hardening change or audit result stated plainly, without spin

Announcements that need a technical layer added first

A rebrand, a partnership, a hiring push or a new pricing structure carries no technical payload on its own. That rarely means there is nothing to announce; usually the interesting fact sits one level underneath. The partnership exists because two systems now share an authentication model. The hiring push follows a decision to build a component in-house. The pricing change reflects what your compute actually costs. Lead with that fact and the commercial news travels behind it.

Product, Platform and Funding Announcements

Four announcement types fit a builder publication naturally, and each has a different center of gravity for a technical reader: product and platform releases, infrastructure and developer tooling, open source news, and funding. Writing all four the same way is the most common structural mistake, and it is visible immediately to an audience that reads releases in each of these categories every week.

Product and platform launches

The technical reader wants to know what problem the system solves that existing tools solve badly, and what you gave up to solve it. Describe the shape of the thing: what it runs on, how it is deployed, what it integrates with, where state lives, how it fails. Feature lists are weak; a short architecture description with one honest limitation is strong. If there is a way to try it without talking to a salesperson, say so early.

Infrastructure, SDK and API releases

Tooling news lives or dies on integration detail. Name the languages, runtimes and versions supported. Say whether the SDK is generated or hand-written, whether it is typed, and what the authentication model is. If an API changed, describe what a caller must now do differently, list the deprecations and state the compatibility position. This reads as dry next to benefits copy, and it is exactly the material a developer will read to the end.

Open source releases and licence changes

This readership contains maintainers, and they read open source news for the governance before the features. Name the licence exactly rather than calling the project open, say which components it covers and which stay proprietary, state who holds the copyright and merge rights, and describe how outside contributions are handled. A licence change on an existing project is genuine news here and deserves the reasoning behind it, because relicensing debates are argued out at length on this site and a company that explains its decision first is arguing in its own words.

Funding rounds written for engineers

A funding announcement aimed at this audience should spend most of its words on what the money buys technically. Round size, stage and named investors belong in the opening because they are the news, but the substance is the roadmap: the systems you will build, the problems you decided are worth solving, the parts of the stack you will own rather than rent, and the engineering roles you are opening. This reader treats a round mainly as a signal about what will exist in a year.

Matching evidence to announcement type

How to Publish on HackerNoon in Three Steps

The process is short: confirm the placement fits your announcement, submit finished copy, and receive the live URL after review. RedPress handles it as a managed placement rather than a submission pushed into a queue and hoped for.

Step one: confirm fit and current terms

Start by checking that the announcement belongs on a builder title at all, then confirm the current terms for this destination: format expectations, what the review looks for, the schedule and the link position. Whether a link is followed is decided by the editorial policy of the publisher, never by a distributor, and the RedPress live support team confirms the current position for this outlet before you order rather than making a promise nobody in the distribution chain can keep.

Step two: submit finished copy

Supply the announcement in final form: headline, a summary line that can stand alone on a tag page, body, a short company description and contact details, with the technical content left in. Say which technologies the piece should be tagged against, since tags are how this readership finds anything. Copy written for a general business wire usually needs an editing pass to survive here, because the material a wire strips out is the material this audience came for: version numbers, workload descriptions, the documentation reference and the limitation you are willing to name.

Step three: editorial review and the live link

Your announcement is reviewed before it goes live, and what you receive afterwards is a published page with a URL you can open, verify, cite in a deck and link from your own site. Clearing review means the copy met the standards applied to submitted content, nothing more: the publication has not tested your product or formed a view about your company.

How to Write a Technical Announcement Without Jargon

Write it by naming real things exactly and refusing to use abstract nouns as a substitute for understanding. Jargon and technical precision are not the same thing, and confusing them is why so many company announcements read as unreadable and empty at once.

Precision is specific nouns, not longer words

Compare two sentences. The first: our platform leverages an advanced distributed architecture to deliver enterprise-grade reliability. The second: the service runs as three stateless replicas behind a load balancer, with writes going to a single primary and reads served from replicas that lag slightly. The second is simpler and vastly more informative, and it invites a technical question, which is the start of engagement rather than the end of it.

A structure that survives skimming

Write so the piece is legible at three depths, because the site presents it at three depths. The headline and the summary field travel on their own across tag pages and shared links, and they should say what was released and what is materially different about it. The subheadings a scanner reads next should carry the architecture, the numbers and the limits. Only the line-by-line reader gets the reasoning. An undifferentiated block of prose loses the first two readers no matter how good the content inside it is.

Lead with the change, not the company

The opening should describe what is now true that was not true before, concretely, with the company as the actor rather than the subject. A reader who learns in the first line that a database now supports something that previously needed a workaround keeps reading. A reader who learns in the first line that a company is a leading provider of solutions has learned the piece contains nothing. When companies publish a press release on HackerNoon and it works, this ordering is usually why.

Write the trade-off out loud

Name the choice you made: consistency over availability, simplicity over configurability, a managed dependency over control. Writing the reasoning down preempts the first objection a skeptical reader would otherwise hold against you for the rest of the piece.

Benchmarks, Claims and Evidence

Any performance number you publish here will be read as a challenge, so publish the conditions that produced it or leave it out. The readership includes people who maintain the systems you are comparing yourself against and who write on the same tags you are publishing under, so a number with no methodology gets answered in the comments or in somebody else's article rather than ignored.

A performance number without its test conditions is not evidence on a builder publication, it is an invitation to be corrected in public by someone who has run the same test.

Publish the setup along with the result

A usable benchmark states the hardware or instance type, the software versions on both sides, the dataset and its size, the concurrency level, the number of runs, whether the figure is a mean or a percentile, and what was excluded. Percentiles beat averages for anything latency-related, because averages hide exactly the behavior engineers care about. If you ran the comparison yourself rather than an independent party, say so. Disclosed self-testing is credible; undisclosed self-testing discovered later is not.

Comparisons need a named baseline

Faster is meaningless without a comparator. Faster than what, at what version, configured how, on what workload. Comparing a tuned installation of your own system against a default installation of somebody else's is the classic mistake, and readers spot it quickly. If a fair external comparison is not possible, comparing your current release to your previous one is honest, verifiable and still interesting.

Non-performance claims still need sources

Adoption counts, uptime figures, security posture and compliance status all require something behind them. State whether an audit was performed and by what kind of body, and describe what a certification actually covers. Be careful with security language: calling a system unhackable is a claim no engineer accepts, whereas describing the threat model you designed against, and what falls outside it, reads as competence. The same discipline applies to AI evaluation numbers, where the benchmark name, the version and the evaluation set matter more than the score.

Mistakes That Get a Tech Announcement Ignored

Announcements fail with a technical audience for four repeatable reasons, and all four are fixable before submission. None of them concern writing quality in the literary sense.

Superlatives standing in for specifics

Revolutionary, game-changing and unparalleled do no work in a sentence read by an engineer. Each occupies the space where a fact should be, and the reader notices the substitution. Mark every evaluative adjective in your draft and either supply the measurement that justifies it or cut the word. A draft usually gets shorter and more credible in the same pass.

Technical content buried under boilerplate

A common pattern puts several paragraphs of positioning and executive quotation ahead of the one paragraph saying what was built, and a scanning reader gives up before reaching it. Invert it: lead with the substance, place the quotation where it adds a decision or a reason rather than an emotion, and put the company description at the end where whoever wants it can find it.

Writing to the buyer when the reader is the implementer

Copy written for a procurement audience talks about ROI, digital transformation and total cost of ownership, and none of it translates. The implementer here is the person who will recommend or veto your product internally, so write for them and the business case gets made on your behalf, in a meeting you are not in.

No route to the actual thing

If a reader finishes your announcement interested and there is nowhere to go, the interest does not survive the trip back to the tag page. Documentation, a repository, a changelog, a public sandbox, a specification page: at least one should be referenced and reachable. Routing every interested reader into a contact form loses the ones who would rather evaluate your product than talk to you about it, and on a builder publication those are the readers worth having.

What Does a HackerNoon Placement Cost?

The current figure for this outlet is shown in the pricing and delivery panel on this page, and the fee covers a managed placement rather than a submission attempt. Since the panel carries the live number, what is worth explaining here is what the fee buys and why the figure differs between publications.

What the fee actually covers

You are paying for access to a placement route on a specific domain, handling of your announcement through it, review against the standards the publisher applies to submitted content, publication on the agreed schedule, and the return of a live URL you verify yourself. It is a one-time publication with no recurring commitment attached, and the published page continues to exist independently of any further spending.

What moves pricing between outlets

• The authority and reach of the domain, which for this outlet means a Domain Authority of 90 and 12M+ monthly visits
• How selective the destination is about the content it accepts and how much editorial handling each submission requires
• Whether the placement is a standalone indexed article or an item inside a syndicated feed
• How specialized the audience is, since a concentrated technical readership is priced differently from an undifferentiated general one
• The scheduling and turnaround the route supports

How to think about value rather than unit price

A retained agency bills continuously whether or not anything is published, and building the same visibility by pitching costs a senior person's attention with no guarantee attached. A managed placement converts an uncertain outcome into a known one, and for a company timing an announcement to a release date, that certainty is the thing being bought. Check the panel on this page for the current figure and delivery window.

What Results Should You Expect?

Expect a permanent, indexed article on a Domain Authority 90 technology domain with 12M+ monthly visits, plus the search and credibility effects that follow, and expect nothing that depends on reader behavior. Being precise about that difference is what keeps the purchase from disappointing.

What is delivered

You get a live page with a URL you can open on publication, a citable reference for your website, sales materials and investor updates, and content on a domain search engines crawl quickly. The page stays in the archive under its technology tags rather than scrolling off a wire feed, so it keeps being findable by the developer evaluating your tool, the candidate researching your engineering team and the investor doing diligence.

What depends on your announcement, not on the placement

Referral traffic, discussion, sign-ups and inbound interest depend on whether the announcement is worth reading. A placement puts the article in front of a large technical readership; it does not make an empty announcement interesting. Companies that get featured on HackerNoon and see a real response are the ones that shipped something specific and described it honestly; those that see nothing usually published positioning with no payload.

What a placement is not

Publication means your announcement met the standards applied to submitted content. It is not a review, an endorsement or an editorial verdict on your company, and describing it as one in your own materials costs more than the placement gained, because this audience checks. Whether the link in your HackerNoon press release is followed is a matter of publisher policy, confirmed by RedPress live support before you order rather than promised in advance by anyone selling distribution.

Who Should Publish on HackerNoon?

This placement fits companies whose news has a technical core and whose users are technical people, and it fits them better than almost any general business title does. If the interesting part of your announcement disappears once the engineering detail is removed, this is the right destination.

Strong fits

• Developer tools, infrastructure, database, observability and platform engineering companies announcing releases or architecture changes
• AI and machine learning companies with model, evaluation, inference or tooling news, where the audience actually reads the methodology
• Security companies publishing research, disclosure practice or hardening work, provided the language stays measured
• Open source projects and the companies behind them announcing releases, license changes or governance decisions
• Hardware, robotics, embedded and protocol projects that fit poorly in consumer or business technology sections
• Blockchain and Web3 teams with protocol, client or cryptography news, which this readership follows closely and reads sceptically
• Startups whose main hiring need is engineers, since this readership is where those engineers are

Companies that should prepare more first

If your product is technical but your announcement is not yet, spend the time before you order rather than after. That usually means having an engineer write two paragraphs on how it works, obtaining one number you can defend, and making documentation publicly reachable. It is a small amount of work and it changes the outcome more than any distribution decision does.

When another outlet serves you better

A consumer product with no technical story, a purely financial announcement aimed at investors, a regional expansion or a lifestyle brand launch will not resonate here even when published cleanly. Those belong on business, financial or regional destinations, and choosing correctly is a better use of budget than placing good copy in front of the wrong readership.

Why a HackerNoon Placement Builds Lasting SEO Authority

A published article on a domain of this authority shapes how search engines and AI systems describe your company, and it keeps doing so long after launch week. The mechanism is not a single link but the accumulation of independent references describing what you do in consistent terms.

Entity signals for a technical brand

Search systems assemble an understanding of a company from what independent domains say about it, and a technology publication describing your product in the correct vocabulary attaches your brand to the right concepts. A page naming your architecture, your category and the problems you solve teaches the index far more than one calling you an innovative solutions provider. Precision matters for ranking, not only for readers.

Long-tail queries a technical article answers

Technical readers search in long, specific strings: a product name plus a stack element, a problem statement plus a constraint, a comparison between two tools. An announcement written with real detail can rank for dozens of these because it contains the vocabulary of the queries. Generic copy contains none of it and ranks for nothing beyond the brand name you already ranked for.

Where the link question actually sits

Whether a link on the published page is followed is determined by the editorial policy of the publisher, and no distributor controls that or should claim to. Anyone guaranteeing a followed link on a major domain is either misinformed or selling something they cannot deliver. Confirm the current position with RedPress live support before you order, and treat the value as the visibility, the citation and the entity signal, all of which persist regardless of link attributes.

A Technical Readiness Checklist

The checklist has three parts: lock the facts before writing, confirm the assets a developer will click through to, and read the draft once as the engineer you are trying to convince. Run it before you submit and most of what causes a technical announcement to underperform gets caught while it is still cheap to fix.

Facts to lock before writing

• The exact release or version identifier, and whether it is generally available, in beta or limited
• Every performance figure with its test conditions written down, even the conditions you will not publish
• The license name if anything is open source, and what specifically is covered by it
• The named spokesperson and their real title, and the date the announcement goes live
• Any limitation, unsupported case or known issue you are prepared to state publicly

Assets a technical reader will look for

Documentation reachable without a login, a changelog entry matching what the announcement claims, a repository if the project is open source, and a way to try the product without a sales conversation if one exists. Verify each resolves on the publication date. Nothing damages a technical announcement faster than a reader following your reference and hitting a placeholder page.

The final read-through

Read the draft as an engineer who does not want to be sold to. Would they learn something. Is there a fact in the first screen. Does any sentence claim more than the piece supports. Could a superlative be replaced with a measurement. Is a limitation named anywhere. Could a competitor reuse this text by changing the company name. If that last answer is yes, companies that submit a press release to HackerNoon in that state get published without being read.

How RedPress Compares

RedPress sells the placement itself, on a named domain, at an agreed schedule, and returns the published URL. That is a narrower promise than the alternatives make, which is why it can be kept.

Compared with wire distribution

Wire services push an announcement to a broad network and report on the distribution rather than the result, which often means an item lands in feed sections and syndicated pages rather than as a standalone article on a domain you chose. A managed placement is the opposite trade: fewer destinations, each named in advance and each verifiable. For a technical company that cares about the right domain rather than many domains, the second model is usually the better purchase.

Compared with an agency retainer

An agency sells ongoing effort and relationships, which can be worth the spend for a company with a continuous news program. What it does not do is guarantee that a specific announcement appears on a specific domain. A placement is bought per announcement, which suits companies with a release calendar rather than a communications department, and it sits alongside agency work rather than replacing it.

Compared with doing it yourself

Submitting directly to a technology publication is open to anyone, and for a company with a genuinely remarkable technical story and a writer who can execute it, that route is worth trying first. What it does not give you is a schedule, a confirmed outcome or the ability to plan a launch around it. Many teams use both: direct submissions where they have the story and the time, managed placement where the date is fixed and the announcement has to be live.