9 ms·

This is an entirely bogus history. She had a tech co-founder and cut him out. I met him back in 2009. https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=8860093 https://w

This is an entirely bogus history. She had a tech co-founder and cut him out. I met him back in 2009. https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=8860093 https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=8860093 Why lie about it?

thejosh 13y ago
You and this LinkedIn user don’t know anyone in common :(
mtrimpe 13y ago
Thank you HN for instantly voting this up to the top. A woman builds a big business from scratch and rather than wondering why it took so long for her to get funding we instantly latch on to a second-hand report that she might've had a falling out with someone before her site even started taking off. Ignoring the fact that this isn't incompatible with the presentation at all or that there's plenty of male founders who we know pulled shitty moves in the beginning; why exactly did we vote this up this quickly?
- ctide 13y ago
  Because the title was: 'Single, female, non-tech founder with no team...and her first 1 million users' and HN thrives on drama and pointing out things that are inaccurate.
- sosuke 13y ago
  I think HN has a very low tolerance for bullshit, no matter what your background or situation is. If you had a tech co-founder, then parted ways with them before getting funding, then advertise yourself has being solo with no co-founder people are going to call you on it.
  - epistasis 13y ago
    She says "no tech cofounder" when she was looking around for funding, and mentions it only to the extent that it makes it more difficult to get funding. The next slides are all about the technical team. Plenty of "co-founders" disappear in early stage startups that take a long time to get going, and at that point they're no longer co-founders, they were just associated people. I think that HN has a very low tolerance for some sorts of bullshit. But it apparently it has a high tolerance for bullshit questions about people that aren't involved with a startup's current success.
    - mtrimpe 13y ago
      It's a sad, sad state of affairs. Especially seeing the points for my comment cycle up and down as rapidly as they are. 12,4,7,4,7,1 so far :( After reading Sam's last two blog posts I just decided to reconsider and apply to YC after all; but the atmosphere here is so toxic that I can't help but feel that I'd spend more energy on dealing with YC misogyny than actually participating.
      - Robin_Message 13y ago
        If I may, I would dearly hope that YC itself, rather than a loosely affiliated internet forum where anyone can participate, has orders of magnitude less misogyny. Also, if anyone was wondering why pg was trying out comment endorsement, this is why. I wouldn't be surprised if Hacker News was shut down entirely in the future. I wonder if it is the principal discouraging factor for female applicants to YC. FWIW, why not apply, go meet the people in person, then decide if there will be more misogyny than useful participation.
      - riggins 13y ago
        the atmosphere here is so toxic 1. I can't say since I haven't been through YC, but I imagine that HN, a site that's open to every joe schmoe on the internet, is not a good reflection of the population that's accepted to YC (probably the most exclusive start-up accelerator). 2. I don't know the truth of the original claim (presumably neither do you). My question is this, if the original claim that there was a technical co-founder that got pushed out is true, is it toxic for dogfood123 to state it? I guess I'm saying it seems like its premature to say it's 'toxic'. I agree that if there are malicious users making up lies about female founders, that's toxic. OTOH, if the claim is true, I struggle to see how talking about reality is toxic.
      - jmharvey 13y ago
        I wouldn't let the atmosphere on HN deter you from applying to YC. YC is far from perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than a semi-anonymous internet forum. I had a female (technical) cofounder, and her general take on YC was that she was treated well by the partners, and didn't encounter any blatant sexism from the batch, but many founders in the batch were young techie guys who gravitated toward conversing with other guys, so she really only got to know a subset of the batch (other women, plus the minority of male founders who were comfortable talking to women). Also, she felt there was a general assumption (among the batch, not the partners) that male founders were technical, but female founders were non-technical, which affected how people interacted with her in subtle ways. YC could do more to educate founders about unconscious bias (and for all I know, they have), but at least in our batch, I think that would have been considered somewhat beyond the scope of the program. I don't think she'd ever characterize it as "YC misogyny." HN, on the other hand, is probably more representative of the attitude of the tech world at large, and possibly a bit worse. YC-founder HN comments are almost universally more civil and enlightened than the bulk of the comments on the site. Apply to YC, or don't, that decision is yours. But as long as you're in the tech world, you're not going to avoid any extra sexism by avoiding YC.
- peterwwillis 13y ago
  Suspicion of impropriety heightens concern, probably due to self-preservation instincts. Someone you don't trust implicitly is more likely to seem suspicious to you if there's a claim of impropriety that can't immediately be explained away by any other currently-available information. When you do implicitly trust someone, much less concern is attributed, even without additional information. This applies uniformly without regard to gender - unless the person viewing the claim is biased towards a particular gender, such as misogynists and misandrists. It was upvoted because it's weird, there's no simple explanation, and people are concerned.
- csomar 13y ago
  Sorry, when someone writes a presentation or do a talk, he's probably being pushed by something: 1. To get his self-esteem to a higher level. Lots of people do talking for this. And they say lots of bullshit to attract your attention and boost their selves. 2. To genially tell the truth and help people. My guess is that this is the minority. So I'm always skeptic about these stories.
voicereasonish 13y ago
Because that's how you get in the news.
- thedrbrian 13y ago
  And no self respecting tech news site will admit its wrong once it's got that ad revenue
NoodleIncident 13y ago
Does anyone have evidence of this claim that doesn't require a LinkedIn account to view?
- esw 13y ago
  Try http://in.linkedin.com/in/sarvjeetahuja http://in.linkedin.com/in/sarvjeetahuja (works for me without being logged in to LinkedIn).
w1ntermute 13y ago
On slide 14 of the presentation, there's a screenshot of an email thread that he's part of. Mirror, in case it gets taken down: http://i.imgur.com/OmultA0.png http://i.imgur.com/OmultA0.png
vadskye 13y ago
The person at the LinkedIn link is Sarvjeet Ahuja. He claims [1] [2] to be a co-founder of Wanelo, and former CTO. I haven't found him mentioned in any documentation from the company, as opposed to just being from him - except one. In the company's CrunchBase profile, he is listed as being a co-founder back in 2009 [3]. I don't know enough about CrunchBase profiles to say whether this should be considered reliable evidence; can someone with more experience confirm? Additionally, a VC report from 2011 talked about how "both founders have extensive knowledge of the high-tech industry" [4]. Another described Sarvjeet's extensive experience [5]. [1] https://angel.co/sarvjeet https://angel.co/sarvjeet [2] http://www.crunchbase.com/person/sarvjeet-ahuja http://www.crunchbase.com/person/sarvjeet-ahuja [3] http://www.crunchbase.com/company/wanelo http://www.crunchbase.com/company/wanelo [4] http://gecr.co.uk/file_download/45/ http://gecr.co.uk/file_download/45/ [5] http://tmtinvestments.com/i/pdf/Wanelo%20RNS%20(22%20Nov%2011).pdf http://tmtinvestments.com/i/pdf/Wanelo%20RNS%20(22%20Nov%201...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- wmblaettler 13y ago
  The first email shown in slide 14 of the OP slideshare [1] has "me, sarvjeet, Ann" listed as recipients... [1] http://www.slideshare.net/500startups/eric-koger-cofounder-ceo-modcloth/14 http://www.slideshare.net/500startups/eric-koger-cofounder-c...
kohanz 13y ago
The phrasing entirely bogus seems hyperbolic. She may have left out a (key?) piece of information, but does that invalidate the summary of what the team achieved?
- dogfood123 13y ago
  Agreed. I would rewrite on hindsight. This is an artful retelling that misleads via omission.
- uniclaude 13y ago
  The comment you're replying to was referring to the original, now redacted, title of the HN Post, which was "Single, female, non-tech founder with no team...and her first 1 million users", which makes the phrasing less hyperbolic.
downandout 13y ago
I'm not sure that she - the founder - is lying in this presentation (though she fails to mention her technical cofounder). I think it's more that the title of this submission, which was presumably not made by her, was inaccurate (and has since been changed to its current title which is more accurate). Lots of companies screw their technical cofounders. I was the technical cofounder of a company that was later acquired, but never received the $12.8 million check I was supposed to and didn't have the resources to fight back against a maniacal cofounder flush with $60+ million in new cash from the acquisition. That doesn't mean that others can't learn from the company's story, even if only told selectively. It just means that the people that wound up in charge are perhaps not the kind of people you would want to do business with.
- chasing 13y ago
  > I was the technical cofounder of a company that was later acquired, but never received the $12.8 million check I was supposed to and didn't have the resources to fight back against a maniacal cofounder flush with $60+ million in new cash from the acquisition. Not to derail, but let's hear that story. Seems like hiring a lawyer would be a no-brainer if you were due $12.8m.
  - UweSchmidt 13y ago
    My bet is that he's already explored that avenue, and that the business relationship was not properly specified in writing and that it's the unsolvable "my word against your word" problem now. Hoping that everyone get's that right the first time is of course illusional; may you all learn that lesson by being screwed out of a moderate 4 digit amount early in your careers!
  - downandout 13y ago
    It's a long story, but I am still in the process of pursuing it legally. When I first learned of the acquisition, I didn't have the resources to pursue it, and even today don't have millions sitting around to pay attorneys. I sent a letter to the acquiring company explaining the situation and demanding that I receive my cut, and they actually responded with an extortionate threat in writing. We are now pursuing a civil federal extortion case against both the acquirer and my cofounder. But, as of this moment, despite my name being on the company's first and primary patent, having written all of its initial code, having envisioned the entire concept of the company myself, and even having named the company, I have seen exactly $0 from an acquisition I was supposed to receive 20% of. Even better, with $60 million in his pocket, my womanizing, alcoholic, conniving cofounder suddenly found Jesus and now fancies himself a televangelist of sorts. At last contact with him, he was "praying for me". Go figure. So yeah, be careful when working with others. My cofounder would have been considered by anyone that looked at him to be beyond reproach. He was not.
reshambabble 13y ago
Perhaps her comment that she was single and non-technical is true. She could have found her co-founder on her own and gave it a shot, but that relationship didn't work out for any number of reasons, leaving her on her own again. Who knows. Finding co-founders that fit isn't easy!

thejosh 13y ago

You and this LinkedIn user don’t know anyone in common :(

mtrimpe 13y ago

Thank you HN for instantly voting this up to the top. A woman builds a big business from scratch and rather than wondering why it took so long for her to get funding we instantly latch on to a second-hand report that she might've had a falling out with someone before her site even started taking off. Ignoring the fact that this isn't incompatible with the presentation at all or that there's plenty of male founders who we know pulled shitty moves in the beginning; why exactly did we vote this up this quickly?

ctide 13y ago
Because the title was: 'Single, female, non-tech founder with no team...and her first 1 million users' and HN thrives on drama and pointing out things that are inaccurate.
sosuke 13y ago
I think HN has a very low tolerance for bullshit, no matter what your background or situation is. If you had a tech co-founder, then parted ways with them before getting funding, then advertise yourself has being solo with no co-founder people are going to call you on it.
- epistasis 13y ago
  She says "no tech cofounder" when she was looking around for funding, and mentions it only to the extent that it makes it more difficult to get funding. The next slides are all about the technical team. Plenty of "co-founders" disappear in early stage startups that take a long time to get going, and at that point they're no longer co-founders, they were just associated people. I think that HN has a very low tolerance for some sorts of bullshit. But it apparently it has a high tolerance for bullshit questions about people that aren't involved with a startup's current success.
  - mtrimpe 13y ago
    It's a sad, sad state of affairs. Especially seeing the points for my comment cycle up and down as rapidly as they are. 12,4,7,4,7,1 so far :( After reading Sam's last two blog posts I just decided to reconsider and apply to YC after all; but the atmosphere here is so toxic that I can't help but feel that I'd spend more energy on dealing with YC misogyny than actually participating.
    - Robin_Message 13y ago
      If I may, I would dearly hope that YC itself, rather than a loosely affiliated internet forum where anyone can participate, has orders of magnitude less misogyny. Also, if anyone was wondering why pg was trying out comment endorsement, this is why. I wouldn't be surprised if Hacker News was shut down entirely in the future. I wonder if it is the principal discouraging factor for female applicants to YC. FWIW, why not apply, go meet the people in person, then decide if there will be more misogyny than useful participation.
    - riggins 13y ago
      the atmosphere here is so toxic 1. I can't say since I haven't been through YC, but I imagine that HN, a site that's open to every joe schmoe on the internet, is not a good reflection of the population that's accepted to YC (probably the most exclusive start-up accelerator). 2. I don't know the truth of the original claim (presumably neither do you). My question is this, if the original claim that there was a technical co-founder that got pushed out is true, is it toxic for dogfood123 to state it? I guess I'm saying it seems like its premature to say it's 'toxic'. I agree that if there are malicious users making up lies about female founders, that's toxic. OTOH, if the claim is true, I struggle to see how talking about reality is toxic.
    - jmharvey 13y ago
      I wouldn't let the atmosphere on HN deter you from applying to YC. YC is far from perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than a semi-anonymous internet forum. I had a female (technical) cofounder, and her general take on YC was that she was treated well by the partners, and didn't encounter any blatant sexism from the batch, but many founders in the batch were young techie guys who gravitated toward conversing with other guys, so she really only got to know a subset of the batch (other women, plus the minority of male founders who were comfortable talking to women). Also, she felt there was a general assumption (among the batch, not the partners) that male founders were technical, but female founders were non-technical, which affected how people interacted with her in subtle ways. YC could do more to educate founders about unconscious bias (and for all I know, they have), but at least in our batch, I think that would have been considered somewhat beyond the scope of the program. I don't think she'd ever characterize it as "YC misogyny." HN, on the other hand, is probably more representative of the attitude of the tech world at large, and possibly a bit worse. YC-founder HN comments are almost universally more civil and enlightened than the bulk of the comments on the site. Apply to YC, or don't, that decision is yours. But as long as you're in the tech world, you're not going to avoid any extra sexism by avoiding YC.
peterwwillis 13y ago
Suspicion of impropriety heightens concern, probably due to self-preservation instincts. Someone you don't trust implicitly is more likely to seem suspicious to you if there's a claim of impropriety that can't immediately be explained away by any other currently-available information. When you do implicitly trust someone, much less concern is attributed, even without additional information. This applies uniformly without regard to gender - unless the person viewing the claim is biased towards a particular gender, such as misogynists and misandrists. It was upvoted because it's weird, there's no simple explanation, and people are concerned.
csomar 13y ago
Sorry, when someone writes a presentation or do a talk, he's probably being pushed by something: 1. To get his self-esteem to a higher level. Lots of people do talking for this. And they say lots of bullshit to attract your attention and boost their selves. 2. To genially tell the truth and help people. My guess is that this is the minority. So I'm always skeptic about these stories.

voicereasonish 13y ago

Because that's how you get in the news.

thedrbrian 13y ago
And no self respecting tech news site will admit its wrong once it's got that ad revenue

NoodleIncident 13y ago

Does anyone have evidence of this claim that doesn't require a LinkedIn account to view?

esw 13y ago
Try http://in.linkedin.com/in/sarvjeetahuja http://in.linkedin.com/in/sarvjeetahuja (works for me without being logged in to LinkedIn).

w1ntermute 13y ago

On slide 14 of the presentation, there's a screenshot of an email thread that he's part of. Mirror, in case it gets taken down: http://i.imgur.com/OmultA0.png http://i.imgur.com/OmultA0.png

vadskye 13y ago

The person at the LinkedIn link is Sarvjeet Ahuja. He claims [1] [2] to be a co-founder of Wanelo, and former CTO. I haven't found him mentioned in any documentation from the company, as opposed to just being from him - except one. In the company's CrunchBase profile, he is listed as being a co-founder back in 2009 [3]. I don't know enough about CrunchBase profiles to say whether this should be considered reliable evidence; can someone with more experience confirm? Additionally, a VC report from 2011 talked about how "both founders have extensive knowledge of the high-tech industry" [4]. Another described Sarvjeet's extensive experience [5]. [1] https://angel.co/sarvjeet https://angel.co/sarvjeet [2] http://www.crunchbase.com/person/sarvjeet-ahuja http://www.crunchbase.com/person/sarvjeet-ahuja [3] http://www.crunchbase.com/company/wanelo http://www.crunchbase.com/company/wanelo [4] http://gecr.co.uk/file_download/45/ http://gecr.co.uk/file_download/45/ [5] http://tmtinvestments.com/i/pdf/Wanelo%20RNS%20(22%20Nov%2011).pdf http://tmtinvestments.com/i/pdf/Wanelo%20RNS%20(22%20Nov%201...

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
wmblaettler 13y ago
The first email shown in slide 14 of the OP slideshare [1] has "me, sarvjeet, Ann" listed as recipients... [1] http://www.slideshare.net/500startups/eric-koger-cofounder-ceo-modcloth/14 http://www.slideshare.net/500startups/eric-koger-cofounder-c...

kohanz 13y ago

The phrasing entirely bogus seems hyperbolic. She may have left out a (key?) piece of information, but does that invalidate the summary of what the team achieved?

dogfood123 13y ago
Agreed. I would rewrite on hindsight. This is an artful retelling that misleads via omission.
uniclaude 13y ago
The comment you're replying to was referring to the original, now redacted, title of the HN Post, which was "Single, female, non-tech founder with no team...and her first 1 million users", which makes the phrasing less hyperbolic.

downandout 13y ago

I'm not sure that she - the founder - is lying in this presentation (though she fails to mention her technical cofounder). I think it's more that the title of this submission, which was presumably not made by her, was inaccurate (and has since been changed to its current title which is more accurate). Lots of companies screw their technical cofounders. I was the technical cofounder of a company that was later acquired, but never received the $12.8 million check I was supposed to and didn't have the resources to fight back against a maniacal cofounder flush with $60+ million in new cash from the acquisition. That doesn't mean that others can't learn from the company's story, even if only told selectively. It just means that the people that wound up in charge are perhaps not the kind of people you would want to do business with.

chasing 13y ago
> I was the technical cofounder of a company that was later acquired, but never received the $12.8 million check I was supposed to and didn't have the resources to fight back against a maniacal cofounder flush with $60+ million in new cash from the acquisition. Not to derail, but let's hear that story. Seems like hiring a lawyer would be a no-brainer if you were due $12.8m.
- UweSchmidt 13y ago
  My bet is that he's already explored that avenue, and that the business relationship was not properly specified in writing and that it's the unsolvable "my word against your word" problem now. Hoping that everyone get's that right the first time is of course illusional; may you all learn that lesson by being screwed out of a moderate 4 digit amount early in your careers!
- downandout 13y ago
  It's a long story, but I am still in the process of pursuing it legally. When I first learned of the acquisition, I didn't have the resources to pursue it, and even today don't have millions sitting around to pay attorneys. I sent a letter to the acquiring company explaining the situation and demanding that I receive my cut, and they actually responded with an extortionate threat in writing. We are now pursuing a civil federal extortion case against both the acquirer and my cofounder. But, as of this moment, despite my name being on the company's first and primary patent, having written all of its initial code, having envisioned the entire concept of the company myself, and even having named the company, I have seen exactly $0 from an acquisition I was supposed to receive 20% of. Even better, with $60 million in his pocket, my womanizing, alcoholic, conniving cofounder suddenly found Jesus and now fancies himself a televangelist of sorts. At last contact with him, he was "praying for me". Go figure. So yeah, be careful when working with others. My cofounder would have been considered by anyone that looked at him to be beyond reproach. He was not.

reshambabble 13y ago

Perhaps her comment that she was single and non-technical is true. She could have found her co-founder on her own and gave it a shot, but that relationship didn't work out for any number of reasons, leaving her on her own again. Who knows. Finding co-founders that fit isn't easy!