4 ms·

> what is the harm in publishing those criteria Makes it that much harder to game... Does Harvard, MIT or any other major university publish their selection c

> what is the harm in publishing those criteria Makes it that much harder to game... Does Harvard, MIT or any other major university publish their selection criteria? (I truly am unaware of the answer to this question) > As it stands it seems to be a real crapshoot Sounds like the University game too. And professional sports. And record labels. Spotting talent is easy, but not everyone with talent succeeds.

sparkzilla 11y ago
>Makes it that much harder to game... But surely the people who play the game best should win. And surely YC has criteria by which the judge talent, just as a record company does, otherwise there is no method and it is a crapshoot. It's not a matter of disclosing "secret sauce" -- each VC, record company, sports team, or incubator, has its own criteria for selection. Some may favor experienced founders, some may favor products that are past alpha, some like mobile. The problem here is that no-one knows YC's rules. By not specifying basic points then it does become a crapshoot. When we see something like Sniply being rejected for "we can’t see it becoming the huge type of company that investors like to fund" then at least we know something. From that we can infer that YC wants companies that can be huge and can get upstream funding. But if that was the case, then why did they select Sniply for interview? And why are so many of the previous batch not huge ideas? To outsiders the process is very inconsistent. It would be a big help if YC said "these are the main criteria we judge by, don't apply otherwise." It would save YC a lot of work sifting through inappropriate applications, and would save potential applicants with good ideas being rejected because of poor match.
- Implicated 11y ago
  When Jackie Robinson played for the Dodgers, it was because they never said "we're not interested in black ball players". They didn't draw the line and they profited greatly. I've got a feeling that Ycomb knows better than pigeon holing themselves by laying out 'basic points' about what they're looking for. What if they don't have a special sauce? What if they're making every decision in only it's context? What if they weren't 'honest' with sniply? Clearly their explanation is inconsistent with previous ycomb groups, so can you really take away that they're only looking for potentially 'huge' companies? All I know is that if I were in control, I would absolutely not give 'guidelines' about specifics that they are or aren't looking for. They're literally looking for the outliers, and setting a size to the box is the fastest way to never get their applications. If Ycomb comes out and says they're not interested in x or y...what if someone thinks they're building x or y, when really they're building z? Now they don't apply, when who knows? As long as they CAN sift through all those applications...why not?

sparkzilla 11y ago

>Makes it that much harder to game... But surely the people who play the game best should win. And surely YC has criteria by which the judge talent, just as a record company does, otherwise there is no method and it is a crapshoot. It's not a matter of disclosing "secret sauce" -- each VC, record company, sports team, or incubator, has its own criteria for selection. Some may favor experienced founders, some may favor products that are past alpha, some like mobile. The problem here is that no-one knows YC's rules. By not specifying basic points then it does become a crapshoot. When we see something like Sniply being rejected for "we can’t see it becoming the huge type of company that investors like to fund" then at least we know something. From that we can infer that YC wants companies that can be huge and can get upstream funding. But if that was the case, then why did they select Sniply for interview? And why are so many of the previous batch not huge ideas? To outsiders the process is very inconsistent. It would be a big help if YC said "these are the main criteria we judge by, don't apply otherwise." It would save YC a lot of work sifting through inappropriate applications, and would save potential applicants with good ideas being rejected because of poor match.

Implicated 11y ago
When Jackie Robinson played for the Dodgers, it was because they never said "we're not interested in black ball players". They didn't draw the line and they profited greatly. I've got a feeling that Ycomb knows better than pigeon holing themselves by laying out 'basic points' about what they're looking for. What if they don't have a special sauce? What if they're making every decision in only it's context? What if they weren't 'honest' with sniply? Clearly their explanation is inconsistent with previous ycomb groups, so can you really take away that they're only looking for potentially 'huge' companies? All I know is that if I were in control, I would absolutely not give 'guidelines' about specifics that they are or aren't looking for. They're literally looking for the outliers, and setting a size to the box is the fastest way to never get their applications. If Ycomb comes out and says they're not interested in x or y...what if someone thinks they're building x or y, when really they're building z? Now they don't apply, when who knows? As long as they CAN sift through all those applications...why not?