Live data from Hacker News

We Make Mistakes

blog.ycombinator.com

11–20 of 206 posts

Re: We Make Mistakes

#11
post #9
post #7

Damn, I was thinking about trying for a "late" application, but apply.ycombinator.com seems to be down. Does anyone know if they still allow this, in principle? Or are batches now so saturated (with good ideas) that they dropped the option?

We do still allow late apps. We're working on the problem and hope to have it back up soon. Sorry guys!

No problem, thanks for the quick response!

Re: We Make Mistakes

#12
"Don’t let funding take your eye off the goal: making something people want. Everything else, including going through Y Combinator, is there to support that goal but is not the goal itself." Exactly...

Re: We Make Mistakes

#13
This is the exact case of a crowded doorway [1] we discussed almost two years ago on HN: Higher the number of applications implies higher the perceivable quality of YC applications. Implies higher the probability of riskier bets to fall through.

What's potentially dangerous about this situation is that quite a few glossy low-risk companies will outdo the more riskier ones - even though YC staff is one of the best in the world and thoroughly equipped to do what it does - and thus lowering the chances of fishing real gems off the coast.

I do not have the numbers, but how have the batches of later years done as compared to the early ones which had Dropbox, Airbnb in them?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5648760

Re: We Make Mistakes

#14
7th rejection, doesn't even phase me anymore. :P

For those with less experience, the disappointment will pass. Take a day if you need to reflect on what you're doing, why you're doing it and how you could do it better.

Rejection is fuel for the fire, use it to burn brighter going forward.

Next time, be so good they can't ignore you, simple as that.

Re: We Make Mistakes

#15
"In this cycle we saw a +40% increase in the number of companies applying" — roughly how many applications were there? 1000? 10,000?

Also, how many teams make it to the interview stage?

Re: We Make Mistakes

#17
The start-ups that are of the most interest are necessarily exceptional and significantly different from start-ups in the past, successful or not. Thus, evaluating start-ups when looking for the ones of most interest is challenging, and evaluations via simple, empirical patterns from the past promise to select a lot of straw and miss some golden needles.

Really the challenge here is common, nearly standard, and a very old story that goes back to nothing less than the Mother Goose children's story "The Little Red Hen": What the hen was doing was unusual and, therefore, not in the experience of others. Thus, no one would help her. But when she had hot, fragrant loaves of bread freshly out of her oven and eager, hungry, paying customers lined up to buy, lots of people were ready to help. But in the interim she had to work alone with just her own evaluation, creativity, and determination. No doubt that story is in Mother Goose because the situation was both common and ancient.

What is needed are better means of evaluating projects. For a special, relatively small, collection of projects, there are such means, highly polished, e.g., for grant applications to NSF, NIH, and DARPA, similarly for Ph.D. dissertation proposals, and also for a huge range of US DoD projects, e.g., the SR-71, the F-117, GPS. Generally these projects and their evaluations have much better batting average than Silicon Valley equity funded information technology start-up projects.

Maybe what Silicon Valley is doing is making money, and the YC $30+ billion is astoundingly impressive, but one major success can be worth $300 billion, 10 times as much, so that we have to suspect that better evaluations could lead to better returns.

Re: We Make Mistakes

#19
> Don’t let funding take your eye off the goal: making something people want. Everything else, including going through Y Combinator, is there to support that goal but is not the goal itself.

It would be interesting to see a chart plotting over time the number of applicants in each batch who have applied to YC multiple times. Based on the number of folks here on HN who have apparently applied multiple times, and for different concepts no less, it seems plausible that a not insignificant percentage of the applicant pool now consists of folks who, contrary to YC's own advice, are more focused on getting accepted into YC than building a real business.

Re: We Make Mistakes

#20
So how would YC classify passing over interviewing former United Nations staff working on reducing the turnaround time and effort it takes aid groups to raise funds to develop, launch and sustain operations responding to the worst humanitarian crises the world has seen in an era? Does this fit in the mistake category or the we’re just naively stupid and don’t have the time to bother spending 5 minutes hearing about your project category?

Aid groups are choking on sheltering and feeding millions of refugees streaming out of Syria and Iraq but who gives a fuck?

Post reply on HN