Are there any meta-analyses of YC "I didn't get into YC" / "I got into YC" posts that can give a more objective conclusion to this kind of thing? We almost always see these posts from individual founders who did [not] make it into YC and what they think the reasons are. It's all anecdotal.

I realize the plural of anecdote is not data, but it would be nice to see some real scholarly analysis of what happens to YC applicants, as opposed to a series of anecdotal and speculative blog posts. Denis is both a founder and a YC advisor, so maybe his anecdotes are a little higher quality than others, but even so, they're still anecdotes.

Which brings me to my other point: every couple of months we get flooded with "I didn't get into YC" and they all basically say the same thing (or at least variations on the same thing). It seems to me that anyone who is applying to YC would already read up as much as they can about YC applicants, which includes reading every "I didn't get into YC" post they can find. After reading 5 or 10 of them, they'll quickly realize there are the same 5 lessons from each one. Why read any more? (Which translates to: why post another "I didn't get into YC" post?)

Anyway, just kinda thinking out loud here. I would love to see a more comprehensive, multi-applicant analysis instead of yet-another-anecdotal-blog-post.

[Edit: Next up on a Jemaclus post, how many times can I use the word "anecdote" in one comment? Stay tuned...]