Example: Most of the successful ideas seemed flawed. I'm sure a great many flawed ideas also seemed flawed. Does the author really believe "this sounds stupid" is a predictor of success? Because if so I have a bridge startup in Brooklyn to sell them.
> Our analysis did reveal one clear, underlying theme:
> There are large companies to be built by offering new, innovative and superior customer experiences to large markets, regardless of how competitive the sector already is or how successful the founders have been before
Looks to me like the author understood the limits of his investigation perfectly well.
We can conclude that "this idea sounds stupid" or "this is a first-time founder" are not good reasons to dismiss an investment opportunity. In other words, the mentioned traits don't appear to be strongly negatively correlated with startup success.
No we can't conclude that. These companies are immense outliers in a marketplace where over 90% of startups fail due to being stupid ideas.
As to stupid idea, I think the black and white nature of the question is an issue for analysis. A scale where people suggest how likely it is to make money could be a more useful indicator. I suspect people may call long shots 'terrible' even if they think it might work, but that does not discount really dumb ideas. Google was a long shot, selling a highly toxic playdough substitute is just not going to work and may get people killed.
Younger folks though, traveling on a budget, interested in meeting other people while away from home - it's a no brainer. We all stay on friends couches, in guest rooms, share cars.