YCPages - List of Y Combinator companies, founders and jobs with statistics
ycpages.info
ycpages.info
Also I would like to be able to edit my company's info.
Many thanks, any feedback would be highly appreciated.
Editing company details coming soon.
I have lots planned for YCPages. The first step was get it out there and get the feedback. I am working on adding the funding details at the moment.
I have also posted a question on Quora. any help on that would be great.
http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-technologies-used-by-YComb...
SocialMoth is no longer active. Paul is involved with Square (which is doing very well).
View 3 was shuttered soon after the batch and everybody went back to school, I believe.
White Noise is defunct. I'm not sure what Sean is up to these days.
Snipshot was a non-batch YC company, I believe (like Justin.TV). Funded by YC based on an existing relationship from a previous batch, but they weren't part of a batch. Not sure that makes it inaccurate...I guess that's the best place to list them, since they were funded around the same time and demoed on the same demo day.
WriteWith is defunct. Eric wrote for VentureBeat for a while. Phillip joined Auctomatic before their acquisition. Martin did something else, but I don't remember what.
I believe everything else in W2007 is correct.
I've personally experienced this. I've tried to talk lots of people into applying for YC, or just starting their own company, over the years since we took part in 2007. About 50% of the people I've tried to convince were women. Only men applied or went on to start businesses. Not a single woman among my friends (among them one who works at Google, and another who started a non-profit foundation when she was 19 that still exists ten years later; these are not random people who don't get shit done; they're YC kinda people) takes my advice to start a company seriously.
The problem is, I'm pretty sure, both genetic and systemic. There's only so much we can do to fix it. At some point, women have to decide they are willing to take economic risks, and bet on themselves.
I'm also not blaming YC for having a bias towards men. I think silicon valley in general has a bias towards men, and since YC is a for profit business they are making economically sound decisions. However, I think the situation sucks in general, and saying any fault lies with women is really unfair.
If you assume that the YC partners aren't biased (do you have any evidence otherwise?) this implies the self-selection isn't based on capability. (i.e. women seem equally confident to apply as men with the same abilities) Which pretty much just leaves us with the usual statistic of the percentage of women working in tech being low.
I know of dozens of incredibly talented potential male founders who applied with killer ideas and were rejected. Seriously.
> I think it is very likely that YC has a strong bias towards men, which this data certainly supports.
Why do you think it's very likely? What data supports that. As one of the other commentators already pointed out, the percentage of YC founders that are women is about equal to the percentage that apply. Saying that the "data support" the argument that YC is biased when there is such an obvious alternative explanation (namely, that there are less female founders) is disingenuous.
> since YC is a for profit business they are making economically sound decisions.
Wait, what? Are you saying that since Silicon Valley (I'm guessing you mean investors in this context?) favors men, YC intentionally (and consciously) chooses to fund men in order to increase the chances that YC founders raise subsequent rounds of financing? That's crazy talk...
> saying any fault lies with women is really unfair.
I don't think anybody is "faulting" women. They are just stating the facts - there are less female engineers, and less female YC applicants.
Also, a "killer idea" isn't what YC looks for. They look for good teams.
I wasn't suggesting that any of the women I suggested should apply to YC would have necessarily gotten in (none of the men I've recommended to YC have, so far). Odds are simply against it, but I think people should do it anyway, if they want to start a company that fits the YC model. My point was that of the people I've encouraged to start businesses, only the men have actually done so. The women always have too many good reasons not to. Their job pays too well, they like the food at Google too much and don't like to cook, they don't want to move away from their friends to live in the valley, they don't want to give up the security they currently enjoy for something uncertain, they don't want to give up their weekends, etc. There's always good reasons to take the safe path...men just seem to be more willing to ignore all those reasons and start a company anyway. Not all men or women fit this description, of course...free will seems to exist, and humans are widely variable. But, it's true enough of the time that I'm absolutely confident YC is not exhibiting a preference for male founders, and that the percentage of accepted female founders is reflective of the percentage of female applicants.
There is much evidence of this, and not just in tech startups, and it's not merely anecdotal, though I think the overwhelming nature of the anecdotal is pretty convincing on its own. Vastly more men die in the line of work than women do, across many fields, for example. More men than women were pioneers by a couple orders of magnitude. More men choose the military, police or fire department as their career than women by an order of magnitude. More men become astronauts, revolutionaries, and stock brokers.
It seems highly unlikely that these disparities are entirely systemic, or based entirely on our society's norms and expectations; though I'm willing to believe that some of the differences are based on environment rather than genetics, and I hope that if I have daughters they will be given ample opportunities to choose any path they want, including startups (in whatever field startups are interesting in 25-30 years).
My point is that it is silly to suggest that just encouraging girls to take a more active interest in math and sciences will not solve this gender disparity. And, it may even be impossible to "solve" it. Women may just not want to start companies at the same rate as men. If that's the case, there's nothing we can do to "fix" it. I quoted "solve" and "fix" because it assumes that there's something wrong with people who don't want to start companies. I don't know that that's the case. We might be the ones taking unnecessary risks for things that may not be as good for long-term health, happiness, and well-being. After all, once basic needs are met, money doesn't buy happiness, and startups can be a lonely and stressful process that lasts years and may never pay off.
"It seems highly unlikely that these disparities are entirely systemic, or based entirely on our society's norms and expectations; though I'm willing to believe that some of the differences are based on environment rather than genetics" You're actually saying the reason that women aren't astronauts, revolutionaries and stock brokers is because they are genetically pre-disposed not to want to be in those position? I would again ask for your evidence supporting this.
"My point is that it is silly to suggest that just encouraging girls to take a more active interest in math and sciences will not solve this gender disparity. And, it may even be impossible to "solve" it. " I think you need to speak with more women. I am relatively young, 25-30 range and I can tell you that I was explicitly told math was "too hard for girls" and that I should "try writing, women are good at that" both by teachers, one of which was a woman. As a woman (in my experience) there are several people and indicators as you grow up telling you what women can and cannot do, should and should not do, Do and do not do. We are all socialized in different ways, men are told that "men don't cry" and "a real man does _____." Nature vs. nurture is a heated debate, I've just never heard an argument made that woman are naturally not in to risky behaviors.
"Women may just not want to start companies at the same rate as men. If that's the case, there's nothing we can do to "fix" it." Nearly every one of my female friends would like to start their own business, there are very real barriers and societal norms that make it difficult for them.
I've met a lot of hacker types who are vehement about the fact that they are not racist or sexist, to the point that they take offense that women are kept out of technical fields due to sexism. I believe this could lead to a kneejerk reaction that gender equality is a non-issue, and any attempts to address it are nothing more than affirmative action undermining technical merit.
Do I think more women should be involved? Sure, I'm all for equality. But any such effort to detract women from other industries, I think would be better suited by detracting talented people (women and men) from other industries (say like maybe Wall St.?)
On the other hand, is there a deep rooted reason in our system why women are detracted from joining the tech startup scene? Possibly. Maybe that's where some effort should go first.
Basically the NFL front office realized that a lot of the owners had some unconscious bias against minority head coaches, and thus they made a rule which forced them to at least acknowledge there were quality minority coaching candidates out there. And once the owners were forced to confront this, they started to agree and hire minority candidates.
I think there are a lot of parallels between this and the current gender disparity in YC. In order to solve such a systemic problem, you have to take big steps. YC doesn't want to take big steps, and thus the problem wont get solved, and people will continue to muse about how women just aren't trying hard enough. Reminds me of the prevailing wisdom in 2000 when everybody said minority head coaches just didn't have what it took to run an NFL team.
It's easy to pretend there are no barriers, or that the barriers are related to talent, but whether YC is biased or not (I don't think it is), this says a lot about how much we lose as a society when talent goes untapped for no good reason.
2011 - Mike Tomlin, Steelers 2010 - Jim Caldwell, Colts 2009 - Mike Tomlin, Steelers (won) 2007 - Tony Dungy, Colts (won) & Lovie Smith, Bears
Before 2007 no black head coach ever coached in the super bowl.
I love that Jessica is leading the Female Founders group on Grub With Us (let's have more please!). What other efforts could be undertaken to solve the problem? How about more Grub with us dinners where Y Combinator founders can meet women with Y Combinator potential?
4 founders are much more common than 5.
1. How long it took companies to exit.
2. Financing raised (also against age of the company, so average individual rounds raised and average time between rounds).
3. Running expenses (perhaps broken down: legal, hardware, people, marketing/ads, etc.)
4. Revenue.
5. Userbase growth.
Asking a lot, but would be great information to have. :)
One small grammatical error: On the companies page, you have "Founder this company". Perhaps, you could change it to "Founder"/"Founder of this company".
Example link: http://ycpages.info/companies/143-answerly
Let me know if you require further information.