Comment by cperciva | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cperciva | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

we're asking applicants to submit videos introducing themselves

I'm glad I'm not applying this time.

Never mind the irritation of figuring out how to create a video (I'm sure it's easy, but why spend time figuring that out when I could be hacking?) -- I simply don't video well, especially in artificial-seeming situations. And I don't think a video would tell you anything useful about me anyway; my most natural voice is the written voice, so that's what you should listen to if you want to learn anything about me.

I can see a couple of potential advantages to requiring an introductory video -- first, it allows you to detect some fraudulent applications; and second, it raises the bar for entry, thus removing some of the less serious applications -- but my impression from everything I've read here is that neither of those are particularly problematic even without videos. I'll admit that some people speak better in video than in writing -- although I think this applies more often to business people than to hackers -- but surely the right solution to deal with such people is to make an introductory video optional, not to make it mandatory. I know there's a lot you can see when you engage a candidate in conversation which you can't see on a written page; but a unilateral video doesn't tell you how well someone can carry on a bilateral or multilateral conversation either.

I'm sure you guys have some reason for this... but I certainly can't see it. Why?

We've found that someone talking live is a much higher bandwidth form of communication than words typed into a form. As well as words you get gestures, intonation, the vibe between a group of cofounders, etc.

But people shouldn't worry that they "video badly." We're not (I hope) so dumb that we'd be taken in by people who are merely smooth presenters. We come from the world of people who video badly ourselves. If we'd been applying for Viaweb, I'd have had to negotiate with Rtm how many words he'd say, and I'd be lucky if I got it as high as 10.

Please keep and release a tally of "creative" videos and how they were "creative": time lapse, blue screen, animated overlays...

Higher bandwidth indeed, but you're giving out an open canvas. Could be good, could be extreme. The restrictions of "traditional" submission mechanisms are like the "traditional" formats for resumes, preventing every resume from becoming a tabloid magazine.

We explicitly ask people not to do that:

http://ycombinator.com/video.html

If they ignore us and put in a bunch of fancy stuff anyway, we'll just click on "next." We have a lot of applications to read.

I absolutely agree that a video of someone talking is a much higher bandwidth form of communication. Similarly, usenet was higher bandwidth in 1995 than it was in 1985 -- but that doesn't mean that it was more useful, only that there was far more noise.

Maybe this will work out fine, but I worry that with a video you'll pick up things like "this guy seems uncomfortable" but not be able to identify the reasons why (is he uncomfortable with the rest of his group? Or just uncomfortable being in front of a camera?) -- or worse, get a subjective sense that a video isn't very inspiring without even identifying what you're noticing, never mind figuring out whether what you're noticing is signal or noise.

There's a reason why most professional symphony orchestras use blind auditions: While nobody disputes the fact that being able to see a musician play is valuable, experience has shown that the noise it introduces is more significant than the signal. Simply put, eliminating the high bandwidth distraction of being able to see someone allows orchestras to pick better people.

We could do blind auditions if a startup had already launched, in the sense that we could just look at stats like their traffic growth. But at the stage we're trying to pick startups, we almost never have such data. So our situation is more analogous to trying to pick people who could become good musicians, before they'd taken any lessons. At our stage, you're judging the people-- so it's useful to see the people.

Nonsense.

I am not sure if we humans can really help being impressed by looks, no matter how smart we are.

The real world requires verbal communication. You definitely aren't the only person whose been annoyed by this (I'm one of them). However, it's essential and YC probably wants to see some ability/willingness to do it.

I'm guessing it gives pg an easy, low cost way to see how applicants present themselves and sell their ideas. It seems like he's trying to come as close to an actual vc pitch without having to meet everyone in person.

Take a look at http://ycombinator.com/video.html

Gives more context - They explicitly state they don't want to make it into a video making contest.

Here's my take on it:

VC money is drying up. Without VC money, your runway is short. It's now much more important to get a lot of users excited quickly.

The best way to do this online is with video, hands down.

So if you can't produce a reasonably good video, you are at a distinct disadvantage, and your company is much less likely to be successful.

It's definitely not to test people's communication skills. We just want to see what they're like.

how were you going to give your pitch & demo?

My code speaks for itself.

Of course YC won't be basing their decision solely on the video, it's just a very valuable piece of input. If your best voice is your written voice, you might want to partner up with a guy that has technical depth, but can also give a wicked in-person presentation.

I think picking a co-founder based on what they'll bring to a YC application might be the best example I've ever heard of "the tail wagging the dog".

It's not just the YC application... it's every part of the business that has to do with effectively explaining things to people - be they investors, board members, employees, reporters, or customers.

I think that's a little arrogant of a stance but that's not to say I don't agree with some of your points in you first post.

In my experience, I think you should consider working on your verbal communication skills. Nothing turns me (more importantly, team members and investors) off more than an ego-centric engineer who thinks their code is god. This can have a lot of implications in your product's quality and success on many levels. It's like the leader singer of a band thinking he knows best, most of the time the band ends up dissolving.

Your code speaks for itself only to people who care about code. Which, as it happens, doesn't include a lot of investors, co-founders, customers, employees, and all of the other people you're going to have to persuade if your startup is going to be successful.

Heck, even if you have a "smarmy sales-dude" as a co-founder, you'll still eventually be in a role where persuasion/leadership is more valuable than coding chops. What percentage of successful startup CTOs do you think code on a day-to-day basis?

On a related note, if anyone needs a smarmy sales dude, hit me up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com