5 ms·

That would be a very, very pointless waste of time and energy for the teams that created essentially as-good (or in some ways better, some ways worse) implement

That would be a very, very pointless waste of time and energy for the teams that created essentially as-good (or in some ways better, some ways worse) implementation as the winner, but for some reason didn't get chosen because there can only be one winner. They would have been much better off putting that kind of work into a project that has residual value in that it isn't overly similar to anything else out there (i.e. the winner), and look into funding from a source that respects their time and effort rather than imposing arbitrary and onerous busy-work of this variety. This is an example of "competition for the sake of competition," the error of elevating competition (or anything else) to almost metaphysical status. Competition has many benefits, but is not a good thing ipso facto.

amichail 17y ago
The task would not be what you would work on if you get in. It would only be used to help evaluate teams.
- anamax 17y ago
  > It would only be used to help evaluate teams. We understand that. We don't understand the relevance of what it measures. Suppose Team A builds a great site and Team B builds a crappy one. What do you do with that information? You clearly believe that that result contains a lot of useful information - how about spelling it out? Feel free to add characteristics of the sites that help you make your case that this exercise provides useful information, but don't cheat.
  - amichail 17y ago
    Suppose Team A builds a great site and Team B builds a crappy one. What do you do with that information? Team A is more talented and/or more determined than Team B. Whatever the case may be, Team A would be taken more seriously than Team B when it comes to quality execution.
    - anamax 17y ago
      How do you get from "great/crappy" to more talented and/or more determined? Doesn't the kind of site or the skills of the folks matter? I ask because the initial Google search box page was crappy. We call it sparse today, but that's just sucking up. Brin admits that it looks like it did because he didn't know much HTML and apparently didn't care.
  - abalashov 17y ago
    What is far more likely is that Team A will build a good site and Team B will build a good site. Team A's will be slightly more springy to the touch and a little more pizzazz. So, you pick Team A. Is the fact that you picked it a useful predictor of whether Team A or Team B would have succeeded in the marketplace, and to what extent? The usefulness of this type of selection is about 0%, and has the dramatically impeding side-effect of wasting Team B's time. Sure, some Y Combinator committee may think Team A's is better, but then, instead of dicking around with the contest, Team B should have just built the product anyway and gone off to sell it on their own. Time is money, and such "contests" assume that programmers' time isn't valuable, like it's a fancy form of relatively slow typing.
- abalashov 17y ago
  Exactly. That's why it's a horrific waste of time. The folks that don't "win" can't keep working on it, either; they'd be competing with someone who won. The only useful judge is the market. Any committee of humans is notoriously myopic and prejudiced.

amichail 17y ago

The task would not be what you would work on if you get in. It would only be used to help evaluate teams.

anamax 17y ago
> It would only be used to help evaluate teams. We understand that. We don't understand the relevance of what it measures. Suppose Team A builds a great site and Team B builds a crappy one. What do you do with that information? You clearly believe that that result contains a lot of useful information - how about spelling it out? Feel free to add characteristics of the sites that help you make your case that this exercise provides useful information, but don't cheat.
- amichail 17y ago
  Suppose Team A builds a great site and Team B builds a crappy one. What do you do with that information? Team A is more talented and/or more determined than Team B. Whatever the case may be, Team A would be taken more seriously than Team B when it comes to quality execution.
  - anamax 17y ago
    How do you get from "great/crappy" to more talented and/or more determined? Doesn't the kind of site or the skills of the folks matter? I ask because the initial Google search box page was crappy. We call it sparse today, but that's just sucking up. Brin admits that it looks like it did because he didn't know much HTML and apparently didn't care.
- abalashov 17y ago
  What is far more likely is that Team A will build a good site and Team B will build a good site. Team A's will be slightly more springy to the touch and a little more pizzazz. So, you pick Team A. Is the fact that you picked it a useful predictor of whether Team A or Team B would have succeeded in the marketplace, and to what extent? The usefulness of this type of selection is about 0%, and has the dramatically impeding side-effect of wasting Team B's time. Sure, some Y Combinator committee may think Team A's is better, but then, instead of dicking around with the contest, Team B should have just built the product anyway and gone off to sell it on their own. Time is money, and such "contests" assume that programmers' time isn't valuable, like it's a fancy form of relatively slow typing.
abalashov 17y ago
Exactly. That's why it's a horrific waste of time. The folks that don't "win" can't keep working on it, either; they'd be competing with someone who won. The only useful judge is the market. Any committee of humans is notoriously myopic and prejudiced.