Guys, how do you figure out the weak points of your application that led to rejection? Is there a way we can get a feedback on the areas we need to improve.
Sure, I can list out points that may have caused my application to be rejected, but that would be a blind shot. A balanced output can come out of a good feedback, but without a feedback it's really difficult to understand why the application was rejected.
Any ideas?
> Guys, how do you figure out the weak points of your application that led to rejection? Is there a way we can get a feedback on the areas we need to improve.
To be able to make a claim of originality, the developer should figure out how to improve his product without anyone holding his hand. If on the other hand a specific reason for rejection were to be given, doesn't the critic have the right to benefit from the fruit of his free engineering advice?
People end up liking new, innovative products for reasons they may not fully understand. Rejection should play by the same rules.
> ... but without a feedback it's really difficult to understand why the application was rejected.
Yep. Just like real life, where individuals sort out reality on their own.
The feedback you want is the main value YC offers, they won't provide it to teams that were not accepted.
I think pretty much all teams are great. Perhaps there isn't a very specific reason for rejection once you get past by the alumni filters and is evaluated by PG himself.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the alumni are filtering teams based on their own values and reality. I think alumni having any contact at all with the selection process makes it extremely biased and will generate a lot of look-a-like startups.
It's not that they are bad or good, but this is how humans work, bias is natural.
I dare YC to choose 10% of teams at random next time, not even reading their application. I bet the results will be the same, if not, better than the average.
That would be a pretty bold move. But say, you wouldn't want some random co-founder to work on a project with you until you are very comfortable working with him/her.
I guess that's pretty much the case with YC too. They are looking for founders with whom they think they will be most comfortable working with.
To be able to make a claim of originality, the developer should figure out how to improve his product without anyone holding his hand. If on the other hand a specific reason for rejection were to be given, doesn't the critic have the right to benefit from the fruit of his free engineering advice?
People end up liking new, innovative products for reasons they may not fully understand. Rejection should play by the same rules.
> ... but without a feedback it's really difficult to understand why the application was rejected.
Yep. Just like real life, where individuals sort out reality on their own.