6 ms·
> I wasn't really laughing at you, more so at your way of explaining those people you interacted with. You just had some funny prose -- which is hardly a bad th
by graycat 8y ago
> I wasn't really laughing at you, more so at your way of explaining those people you interacted with. You just had some funny prose -- which is hardly a bad thing.
Much of the prose was intended to be funny.
> So, like your idea is like Google, but it understands english sentences close to like a human would? Did I understand that correctly?
I'll just stay with the description I gave.
- anonytrary 8y agoYou could work on a better description. The ability to understand a question without getting off topic and describing things eloquently, concisely and in layman terms are necessary skills.
- graycat 8y agoI gave short, concise, layman's terms, user's terms, on topic descriptions lots of places in this thread: Going for the rest of search, the 2/3rds currently served at best poorly, and based on the meaning of the content. I said all that. I'm not pitching VCs here: As I made clear, I wasted months on VCs and gave up. The short, simple, ..., description of why is that (1) they won't evaluate and, thus, won't invest in technology and (2) they want to invest in traction significant and growing rapidly and by the time I have that I won't accept an equity check or a BoD. As I wrote, the VCs don't want me now, and when they want me I won't want, need, or accept them. Nice and short. Want a shorter elevator pitch? Google and Bing are good in about 1/3rd of search. I'm going for the other 2/3rds. Elevator pitches are for investors, and I spent months sending pitches just this short, with more below, longer, varied, etc. The conclusion was simple: The first requirement for any check is traction. Many VC Web sites were deceptive on this point; as a determined entrepreneur I kept trying; but I've learned my lesson -- no role for VCs.