Hacker News Reader

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?

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?

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.

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.

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 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?

> 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?

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