We label Bandsintown as a rejected company to show perseverance and because i think there is an interest in the companies that are applying to YC wether they made it or not. I am curious to how everyone feels on this issue.
As Paul has pointed out in the past, there are many reasons why a company might not receive funding, and most of them have nothing to do with the merits of the company itself. Being not accepted by YC doesn't mean that they necessarily think there's anything wrong with you -- in this case, "not accepted" is not a synonym for "rejected".
"We label ourselves as a rejected company to show perseverance..."
I think it shows more of either: a) taking rejection too personally, or b) mean spirited demonstration that YC made a mistake by not funding you.
Either way, I don't think it's in any way "unethical"... just unwise. If you think YC made a mistake, and you want them to correct it, explain so in your application for the next round. If you've changed your mind, and don't want their support anymore, don't dwell on it and go on with your life.
I'm really curious what percentage of the submissions that get rejected go on to incorporate and put something out there.
Which incidentally is probably also a large part of the motive for this post. If you were really just interested in the abstract question, you could have avoided the appearance of an ulterior motive by making this a straight question instead of linking to your original post. Want me to change that for you?
It would obviously mean exactly the same thing.
Just describe what your startup is, not what it isn't.
If there is some other reason why you don't like "YC reject" in titles (unhealthy us vs them mentality?), why not comment on the submitted article asking the submitter to edit the title? I'm not affiliated with knewjax, but it looks to me from his comments that he would be happy to comply. I think most, if not all, previously-rejected applicants who post here would do the same.
It is truthful, but it is not a description.
I was relying on a less inclusive meaning of the word: to describe as in to relate intrinsic properties of something. Yes, 'intrinsic' itself is a sloppy concept defined mostly by convention, but that's true for most of our language. I'll leave it at that, apologize for my sloppy language, and appeal to common sense.
My point is that the "rejected by YC" tag doesn't add much information, certainly not enough to merit being in the title. Its main effect is attention grabbing. Those priorities are inappropriate enough for me, and I support the banning of this kind of stuff.
At the same time I can respect PG decision to edit the title. After all one of the goals in titling my post with "YCombinator Rejected Company" is to gather more attention for our site. Can you fault me?
That will kind of solve itself as most of them go nowhere and nobody ever hears about them again.
Spread out over a few weeks, we probably spent 24 hours on the app (this estimate includes tasks like market research, for example, to answer the "who are your competitors" question). Maybe this seems like a long time, but I think it takes a long time to come up with well-written, concise prose.
Now, we didn't get accepted, but we did make it to the interview.
I didn't even know about the program until the afternoon on which applications were due--I had seen the Boston one come and go, but would have never considered a move from Austin to Boston...by the time I realized there was one in CA, it was close to too late. I submitted it within hours of the deadline, and had dozens of other things going on at the same time. I looked back over it later (before going for the interview in Boston), and it was pretty bad, except in a few spots where deep knowledge of our field and code overwhelmed the slapdash nature of the thing as a whole.
If it makes you feel better, we just scraped by, on the obvious difficulty of the problems that we had already solved when we arrived for the interview (and even then pg was not on board with what we were doing...I'm pretty certain we owe our acceptance entirely to Trevor and rtm, who have done system administration and recognized the pain that our product takes away, while pg seemingly couldn't figure out why we would even want to address those problems).
But, you're absolutely right: It's not the point I was trying to make.
s/20 minutes/2 fortnights/g and the intent is the same.
We label Bandsintown as a rejected company to show perseverance and because i think there is an interest in the companies that are applying to YC wether they made it or not. I am curious to how everyone feels on this issue.