Comment by nefele | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nefele | Hacker News Reader

This is a question to PG and other people involved in looking at startup applications.

Can you reveal anything about the number of applications you've received this time, as compared to other funding sessions? I suspect that it's much higher than the number of proposals for WFP, but have you seen a large increase in the number of apps compared to last summer, because of all the publicity you're getting?

Also, if this is something you're inclined to share -- on average, how many ideas would you consider `serious', in the sense that you suspect that even without your funding the idea will be developed, as opposed to just being forgotten. I suspect some people will just take a shot at getting the funding, and go on to do other things if it doesn't work out.

And one more thing -- due to Reddit's success, are you planning to take more risks than in the past, and maybe fund younger people or more extravagant ideas?

Or are you satisfied with your current methodology?

If you could let us know, maybe after parsing the current batch of apps, I think many people would consider the results quite interesting.

We got 421 applications. That's more than past cycles, maybe because we're getting better known. This will be the last time we disclose application numbers though. Now that we have competitors (or at least imitators), we don't want to get into a number-of-applicants contest. It's easy to inflate that number, by encouraging undergrads and single founders to apply, but we don't want to go there.

The big difference this time is the increase in the number of applicants from overseas. Otherwise the people and the ideas are like previous years.

We're always trying to push the limits. Probably not the youth limit, because we started out pushing that, and know pretty well where the edge is. But we may, for example, accept a large number of groups this time. We'll see how many are good.

Paul,

I hope that despite the competition you will still be able to discuss some trends in the applications you get -- as much as YC is a serious business now, I suspect it's been an interesting sociological experiment for some people.

Regarding the larger number of groups you might accept, I can't help but wonder how YC will scale in the near future. You recently said that the number of unsuccessful startups in the first batch was very low, and it seems that you are getting an extremely self-selected pool of applicants to start with. If you can manage funding more people at once (I suspect time is the bottleneck), I'd venture a guess that you'll keep a 'success' rate way above the standard VC level.

And if you get to work with a few groups from overseas, I'd be keen to learn if you noticed any (cultural?) differences in their approach, or whether hackers are just hackers, regardless of their location...

We already have some practice scaling. The first batch was 8 startups, and the most recent 13. I think we could get to 20 or even 30 without changing the model substantially. Beyond that we might have to hire people, or get alumni to help.

So far, foreign founders seem a bit more serious. Makes sense, because merely coming to the US is a big step for them.

PG,

What would be cool is if we could access the Application Page still and possibly see a status of the Applications (eg. Unread, Read, Reviewed, Rejected, Considered, etc) - and if Rejected, maybe a 1-2 liner from the YC Team.

It would take a little bit more time on YC's part, but from past experiences, the more communication that can be had between the entrepreneur and VC, the better - even on failed pitches there is something to be learned.

"This will be the last time we disclose application numbers though. Now that we have competitors (or at least imitators), we don't want to get into a number-of-applicants contest." -pg

It's not really a contest unless you think of it as one... why is YC not be more public about their funding, in general? More info would encourage more people to submit an application, I think. Personally, I would have found examples of successful applications very useful/interesting - partially because I'm curious how reddit looked in the minds of the founders, but also to answer little questions - like how informal of a tone it's OK to use, or if it's OK to be hesitant on your tools of choise, etc.

Does the fact that other companies have started imitating Y Combinator bother you? In one sense, I know this will make it harder for you to get people with the best ideas (but I wouldn't worry about that for at least a few years - you're way too far ahead of anyone else). But for the community, having the ability to get a little funding for a larger number of startups could turn out to be a good thing.

Even if you can work with 30 startups in each session, that is still a tiny fraction of all the applications you're getting. There must be projects beyond the ones you will accept that still have a shot at becoming successful. If other people are willing to give funding/advice, couldn't that be a Good Thing?

Thanks for sharing that info .... it gives us an idea of what you have to go through to screen the applications... does every application get a reply?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com