Y Combinator rejection reasons | Hacker News Reader

Y Combinator rejection reasons

google.com

61 pointsblueintegral34 comments

We applied (and interviewed!) for YC last season. We didn't get in, but they were dead on about the issues with our business.

Since then, we've addressed the issue and are continuing to move forward.

Remember, not getting into YC isn't the end - and YC does make mistakes. Just remember to hear their reasons out and really consider what they have to say. They're all brilliant people and have an uncanny ability to unravel your business in less than 10 minutes.

Build, fail, listen, learn, keep building, keep listening, keep learning, keep moving.

I think there is a sweet spot that you have to hit where you have the focus to start on a solution to a small part of a big problem, but still show investors that there is a clear path to eventually tackle more and more of the bigger problem. Reid Hoffman talks about "boil the ocean" startups that are just too big to tackle, but if you approach it as boiling a cup or a pot first, and convince investors that there is still an ocean to be boiled down the line, you have a good shot.

PG has several themes in his essays around this idea. Others have talked it about it as well. It isn't a hidden secret or unknown. Most people just choose to ignore it.

That said, YC could be missing out on opportunities if they fail to have the foresight to see the cups that could eventually become oceans -- ie the ability of sniply to (hypothetically) bring their users over to other products in the future.

Just because a particular seed from a startup isn't going to sprout into a forest overnight doesn't mean that particular startup doesn't have the potential to find other seeds that do.

I guess what I'm saying is YC would do well to consider funding people with good ideas as much as the ideas themselves.

I guess what I'm saying is YC would do well to consider funding people with good ideas as much as the ideas themselves.

That's a good point. YC does claim to look at people first and then ideas, and really the idea is just evidence that you can have good ideas. But I guess they are also looking for pattern recognition, as in, can you spot the pattern that YC is looking for. That seems to be (in my opinion) smart teams who can tackle a small chunk of a big problem before and during YC, and sell investors the dream of the whole chunk after YC. Think couch surfing app now, disrupting the hotel industry later. Cloud based USB stick now, revolutionize the cloud storage industry later.

YC is not going to be completely transparent in their selection process because doing so would make it easier to manipulate the interview process. Jessica Livingston already mentioned in an interivew that they've revealed too much. Now founders are going in lying about working together for years on projects and being life-long friends.

Entrepreneur: "Hey YC, what do I have to tell you in order for me to get in? You know, so I can practice it and avoid being weeded out by your process. So I can tell you all the things you want to hear during the interview. I promise I won't lie during my interview."

Is this a joke that I am not getting? Is linking to google supposed to be a suggestion that there are a very large number of reasons for rejection?

the person didn't bother to collect them, but I think you're supposed to click through one at a time and read the reasons.

I thought OP was simply sharing a unique way of searching Google for all YC rejections. I've done plenty of complex searching and I've wondered what the reasons were that various companies get rejected; for whatever reason I never thought to try a tight search like this.

I think it is just a clever way of linking to a collection of related articles.

Apparently too clever for its own good. Mobile Safari just shows clean Google search page, no search results. I guess this is what happened to the GP poster.

The submitted url is: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=y+combinator+interview+...

If I paste this into Safari on iOS it redirects to a blank Google page in my country: https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=cr&ei=yqk0VcmaLaa07QbeqoH4C...

This is exactly what is happening to me too. At least I now understand what the op was trying to do.

iOS?

I'm too seeing a default Google page with just an entry field on it. Nothing else.

Just because a business is too small for investors like YC, doesn't mean it will not be profitable if the team stays small and delivers to it's niche.

Most common Y Combinator rejection reasons:

1. Facebook is already the best "Facebook for X".

2. The founders are old enough to know better.

3. Co-founder looks like an extra from "Wayne's World"

4. The co-founder is the founder's left hand inside a sock puppet.

5. Someone mentioned "Java" and it killed the mood.

6. The founders somehow discovered that the VCs are reptillians, as are most world leaders

I remember that some years ago while reading "Hacker and Painters" I got the naive impression(I was 18) that I could just go to grad school and then become rich by just building a technically superior product, without having business experience. How wrong I was.

Thanks for the post; very helpful. You might consider sharing the link via your own product; this way people will see how it works ...

I don't know why YC needed an interview to tell Sniply that "we can’t see it becoming the huge type of company that investors like to fund." Surely that should have been weeded out in the initial selection. Their story highlights a lack of transparency in the YC selection process. Those who are rejected at the application stage get no reasons at all. Then they hear stories like this and wonder if there is any method to the selection process at all.

If YC has internal tools to assess all the applications (as they claim) then what is the harm in publishing those criteria, and publishing the results publicly. For example, let's say Sniply got 5/10 for market size, but had 10/10 for member ability (and that ability was weighted evenly) then we could see how it was selected, and we could see why it was selected over other applicants. Then all applicants could see where they stand. As it stands it seems to be a real crapshoot, which gives false hope to companies like Sniply, while denying others the chance to be selected.

And that spot could have gone to someone with a bigger/better idea but sadder application, huh? Makes sense.

Don't be confused about the process. It isn't there to be fair to anyone, or to weed out efficiently, or to give feedback. Its there to maximize the chance that some big winners get funded. The final metric is, do they find and fund big winners? The answer is yes, clearly. Any other criticism is moot.

If that was the case they would have eliminated Sniply at the first round. Also, judging from the last batch I don't see many Unicorns.

There won't be many unicorns. They'll be one or maybe two, and it won't be obvious for a few years which companies they are.

What good is getting eliminated before than later? They eventually did reject them, all that shows is, they are also humans and not perfect in predicting the future by few questions in the applications.

Eliminating them earlier would have allowed a better qualified candidate to go through, a benefit to YC and to the other company.

I am not sure I agree. How would they quantify and publish their instincts?

"We've got 43% hunch that you will wet your pants in first 10 board meetings."

I don't think so. It is too complicated for the numbers to be disclosed or published, even if they use some metrics as a system to weed out initially. I am sure the final selection metrics are not easily quantifiable.

Moreover, I am fairly certain YC gets more fully fundable and qualified teams than they can actually fund. In that case, maybe they are just trying to bring together groups that will benefit the most from each other? Maybe they are trying to create an ecosystem or a team during the summer? Maybe a company will just not fit in? Too many possible reasons.

If you hear that, are you allowed to paean ycombinator?

> If YC has internal tools to assess all the applications (as they claim) then what is the harm in publishing those criteria, and publishing the results publicly.

Isn't that like asking for the recipe to their secret sauce?

Dude, YC is not obligated to do anything for you, or anybody. They're not a college, and even those aren't transparent with selection criteria. Christ, checklists out of 10?

Life is a crapshoot.

People need to also stop thinking that incubator == success, or that not incubator == not success.

Except that, why would people need to stop thinking that?

Because, its very obvious that, at the very least, becoming part of y combinator sets you up for major success. Just like being part of an Ivy League.

Sure, you can have success without it, but damn, why wouldn't you want it?

> what is the harm in publishing those criteria

Makes it that much harder to game...

Does Harvard, MIT or any other major university publish their selection criteria? (I truly am unaware of the answer to this question)

> As it stands it seems to be a real crapshoot

Sounds like the University game too. And professional sports. And record labels.

Spotting talent is easy, but not everyone with talent succeeds.

>Makes it that much harder to game...

But surely the people who play the game best should win. And surely YC has criteria by which the judge talent, just as a record company does, otherwise there is no method and it is a crapshoot.

It's not a matter of disclosing "secret sauce" -- each VC, record company, sports team, or incubator, has its own criteria for selection. Some may favor experienced founders, some may favor products that are past alpha, some like mobile. The problem here is that no-one knows YC's rules. By not specifying basic points then it does become a crapshoot.

When we see something like Sniply being rejected for "we can’t see it becoming the huge type of company that investors like to fund" then at least we know something. From that we can infer that YC wants companies that can be huge and can get upstream funding. But if that was the case, then why did they select Sniply for interview? And why are so many of the previous batch not huge ideas? To outsiders the process is very inconsistent.

It would be a big help if YC said "these are the main criteria we judge by, don't apply otherwise." It would save YC a lot of work sifting through inappropriate applications, and would save potential applicants with good ideas being rejected because of poor match.

When Jackie Robinson played for the Dodgers, it was because they never said "we're not interested in black ball players". They didn't draw the line and they profited greatly.

I've got a feeling that Ycomb knows better than pigeon holing themselves by laying out 'basic points' about what they're looking for.

What if they don't have a special sauce? What if they're making every decision in only it's context? What if they weren't 'honest' with sniply? Clearly their explanation is inconsistent with previous ycomb groups, so can you really take away that they're only looking for potentially 'huge' companies?

All I know is that if I were in control, I would absolutely not give 'guidelines' about specifics that they are or aren't looking for. They're literally looking for the outliers, and setting a size to the box is the fastest way to never get their applications.

If Ycomb comes out and says they're not interested in x or y...what if someone thinks they're building x or y, when really they're building z? Now they don't apply, when who knows?

As long as they CAN sift through all those applications...why not?

There can be umpteen number of reasons for rejection. As long as the process is opaque, people can only speculate.

Time to move on, focus on what's critical for you to succeed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com