We Make Mistakes • Hacker News Board

Re: We Make Mistakes

#201

Post by graphene » Wed, Oct 29, 2014, 11:30 PM UTC

ig1 wrote: post #190

graphene wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't find a source for LightSail having been rejected from YC, the linked reference is just a crunchbase entry that doesn't mention YC as investors. I'd be super interested to know more about this, since LightSail seems like exactly the type of company (and founder) that YC says it wants to fund: Working in a RFS domain (energy), massive potential upside, and founder with considerable domain expertise.

IIRC it was in 2008 when YC was in a very different position from what it is now.

That seems to have been a web startup, see http://daniellefong.com/2008/04/11/one-response-to-rejection...

Still food for thought that YC would reject a founder so obviously good (although perhaps not obviously then) as DaniFong..

I wonder if getting rejected was one of the reasons for her to start working on something more "zero to one", and closer to her area of expertise?

Re: We Make Mistakes

#202

Post by aliakhtar » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 3:01 AM UTC

flipside wrote: post #200

aliakhtar wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

then why did you build it that way?

it isn't intended to be used in real-time, let me know what you can infer from that.

It SHOULD be intended for real time feedback. People aren't going to remember how they felt at particular times after watching a particular movie.

Re: We Make Mistakes

#203

Post by AustinPythonFTW » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 4:58 AM UTC

ig1 wrote: post #194

AustinPythonFTW wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thanks for the comment. YC is definitely great about being very respectful to applicants in its process and blog posts, so don't get me wrong. I'm just wondering if there's a way for people to understand what their chances are. For example, if 0.01% of people that have lower than a 650 GMAT get into Stanford, then that would be useful information to know (for hopeful applicants). Similarly, if the "has revenue" cohor…

The curve is far less uniform than you might imagine. There are going to be a few companies which are obvious superstars (great team, market, execution, traction, etc.) which will be obvious yeses. You're either in this group or your not. There are many many companies which are obviously bad: weak team, bad market, poorly thought through idea, pre-product, etc. These companies would get rejected regardless of how man…

ig1: your comment is very insightful -- it may be a situation where you, as an insider and experienced founder, can more clearly delineate between the categories (particularly obviously bad vs. middle) than some of us (first time founders, etc). anyways, it's a good point, thank you.

Re: We Make Mistakes

#204

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 4:58 AM UTC

ig1 wrote: post #194

AustinPythonFTW wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thanks for the comment. YC is definitely great about being very respectful to applicants in its process and blog posts, so don't get me wrong. I'm just wondering if there's a way for people to understand what their chances are. For example, if 0.01% of people that have lower than a 650 GMAT get into Stanford, then that would be useful information to know (for hopeful applicants). Similarly, if the "has revenue" cohor…

The curve is far less uniform than you might imagine. There are going to be a few companies which are obvious superstars (great team, market, execution, traction, etc.) which will be obvious yeses. You're either in this group or your not. There are many many companies which are obviously bad: weak team, bad market, poorly thought through idea, pre-product, etc. These companies would get rejected regardless of how man…

[deleted]

Re: We Make Mistakes

#205

Post by aliakhtar » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 5:30 AM UTC

qazawy1001 wrote: post #154

you make mistakes and we will remember. btw, it just might be sour grapes, but i get the feeling yc app process is highly gamed right now and being rejected by it is not useful enough information to act on for the founders - which is the hallmark of a good investor.

http://i.imgur.com/4zlJhGg.jpg

Re: We Make Mistakes

#206

Post by hueving » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 9:33 PM UTC

hnriot wrote: post #178

hessenwolf wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got a reply from a financial engineering consultancy HR person on Friday to say that they would not be able to process my application until I had submitted my high school results. From 1997. I have several applications on the go right now, so I do not have time to go historical for them. They miss a candidate.

that's not unreasonable, when applying for job you need to get your stuff together. So many companies have later found out employees claimed degrees they never got. HR protects against that.

>that's not unreasonable

Right, it's pure insanity. Documentation of how you behaved as a minor when you already have multiple college degrees is completely irrelevant.