Has YC made a solid argument for zero feedback policy?

[jdrobins2000]

"Unfortunately we can't give you individual feedback about your application. This page explains why:"

http://ycombinator.com/whynot.html

I have read and understand the reasons stated for not being able to offer feedback, and I understand that YC owes nothing to applicants. However, the explanation offered does not fully support the claim that it can't provide feedback to applicants.

The reason boils down to "there often is no reason". Which implies that sometimes there is a reason.

Similarly: "From that cutoff down to about the halfway point, the applications are pretty good." Which implies that fully half of applications are not that good, presumably for reasons which could be easily identified.

Feedback options remaining which wouldn't be precluded by the reasons stated include: 1. Your group was/was not in the "pretty good" top 50% of applications 2. Your group was rejected mainly because of ABC (or there was no clear reason/weakness, if that is the case)

I of course acknowledge it is the prerogative of YC to withhold feedback for any reasons they choose, and they have no obligation to share that publicly. But if they choose to make those reasons public, it is reasonable to expect them to contain sound logic.

We appreciate that the YC team is very busy. It seems that they have already done the heavy lifting of evaluating applicants, but perhaps distilling that into feedback would be a substantial effort. I can't make the judgement of whether it is in their best interest to give feedback when possible, but I suspect I am not alone in believing that any feedback would be beneficial and much appreciated. Unless there are reasons not stated, I hope YC will reconsider offering some form of feedback when possible.

[praxeologist]

I'm sure that if you posted your app/site here, people could give you plenty of reasons. Ask yourself what you think the reasons are. What would you do to "kick your own ass"?

Technically, I am not buying the "there is no reason" either most of the time. It is probably any number of common reasons like red flags (filled with buzzwords and marketing speak, weak/iterative product, single founder with no history of success) or maybe it is just a bunch of more minor or subtle things. Maybe they don't think there is a huge future for X even though it is popular now; they think Y is on the way up or there are just 10 other applications doing something like X which are more compelling or have a team with a better pedigree than you.

Maybe sometimes it is fairly easy to give a reason, but then it will be expected for everyone and they get a lot of applications now. It would be hugely time consuming to give a detailed evaluation and maybe sometimes too it would be giving away some secrets they don't want to.

[jdrobins2000 → praxeologist]

All valid points, many of which I have considered as well. It would just be more satisfying to hear it definitively from YC.

The same goes for specific feedback. I can think of many reasons they might have rejected us. However, I would like to know how they see it, and perhaps if they have new insights. I also happen to think we have a solid team, with a great idea/design/app, and would like to know if they strongly disagree or if we just didn't quite make the cut.

Perhaps at some point I will post my app here. Perhaps if the YC partners tell me it's a shitty idea that will never work, I might be more convinced that I don't have to be concerned about anyone stealing my idea.

[swatkat7]

I second your thoughts. Our application was turned down and I got the same email in my inbox this morning. In my case, I had a different reaction to the rejection though, in that, I decided to take on the challenge head-on. But then again, now that I think of it, I'm deeply devastated that I couldn't get any feedback from them.

I'm a very curious person and have been all my life. Part of what makes me unique is my ability to go to great, if not seemingly impossible, lengths to find out things that pique my interest. And, YC, finally seemed like a place where I could belong after feeling so very different all my life.

It is painful to see them return your application with a generic 'no' because I have no way of knowing what I could improve or what is it that made them look away in the first place. I'm pissed off because I care.

To quote from Don Quixote, "there were no embraces, because where there is great love, there is often little display of it."

I hope they could give me some feedback. For once in my life, I'd know, for a fact, than having to ruminate and speculate over it.

[jdrobins2000 → swatkat7]

I fully support your initial reaction to not let it slow you down. Despite my post, I am not deterred or upset in any way. Disappointed sure, but then again I could list a number of reasons why we might be rejected on paper. So, I won't make assumptions about why they passed.

I just hate to see an opportunity for learning missed, whether I am the student or teacher. I would also like to evaluate whether there is a fundamental problem they perceive, large or small, or if it is an issue of communication. And if they do see a valid major flaw, I sure would love to know about it.

Perhaps, as can be inferred from their "it's not you, it's me" breakup-esque language, they are concerned about causing damage by providing rejection feedback. Perhaps they are concerned they don't have sufficient time to evaluate applications thoroughly enough to provide reliably meaningful feedback. Or perhaps they are concerned that their feedback might be taken more strongly than intended. Perhaps in reality it is more beneficial overall for them NOT to provide feedback. But given a choice, I would opt for feedback and believe I would benefit from it.

[swatkat7 → jdrobins2000]

I agree that they're being too nice to the founders thinking if their feedback could alter their paths. I like how you draw parallels to a break-up. But even during a break-up pussyfooting around what made you break up with the other person just makes them generally sour and guarded.

I've seen a lot of people who speculate (often for a long time), at the reasons for their break-up and that ends up consuming them. It might lead to them questioning the very basis of why they started doing something in the first place.

Feedback helps there! I guess, the sheer volume of applications make it impossible for them to individually respond to every application, but, without feedback, it just seems grim and insincere.

[jdrobins2000 → swatkat7]

Not enough time is a completely valid reason. But I haven't heard that from them.

About the breakup analogy: the similarities are many, like how each one is different, sometimes complete honesty could do more harm than good, and sometimes there is no reason other than "we're just not right for each other" or "I met someone else." And maybe I should add, breaking up over email using a form letter is cold shit. Haha, just a joke, I know they probably do have good reasons for it.

[baruch → jdrobins2000]

One reason for not giving out a reason is that with the reasons given, collected and analyzed one could try to game the system by eliminating all signals that YC uses to detect bad applications without actually fixing the underlying issues.

There was a post lately about PG giving an interview and giving some shred of direction as to what makes YC reject applications and there was a big discussion on that fine point. He also said in the discussion that it was just a single way to discern between good and bad applications and that he doesn't give them all out so as not to be gamed around the indicators that YC uses to reject applications.

[jdrobins2000 → baruch]

Thank you for your insights. I will look for that interview, but if you could share the link I'd appreciate it.

I can understand reluctance to share too many details, but I can imagine a useful middle ground between detailed and nothing.

[baruch → jdrobins2000]

Here you go: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6279918

This is the explanation of pg that says his accent indicator is the only one he's willing to talk about. There was a long discussion and many posts and comments on several posts about this topic, and pg explained his position on the matter more deeply on: http://paulgraham.com/accents.html

[jdrobins2000 → baruch]

Ah yes, thank you very much! Karma coming your way. I had read that essay and seen pg's comment. However, I didn't notice his implication that he wasn't willing to talk about most criteria because they could be faked/gamed. Kudos to you or whoever spotted that. However, I don't believe he said it was the only one he would discuss.

I am very sympathetic to their need to keep some of their cards private. While I and others might just be looking for a little constructive criticism for its own sake, no doubt there would be some who would try to use the information to portray themselves as something they are not or hide something that would hurt their chances. If this reduces the amount of feedback they could provide to a level where it wouldn't be helpful or makes it a complicated and risky affair, then it's reasonable to just avoid it altogether.

I am not sure why they wouldn't just say that though. Perhaps to avoid catalyzing attempts to identify and game their criteria?

[baruch → jdrobins2000]

I don't have a strong opinion on whether pg and YC are right or wrong on their position. I also see no real reason to obsess over this, it's just is.

[jdrobins2000 → baruch]

Oh, I don't think its a matter of right or wrong. They have a right to decide whatever they think is best. I'm just trying to understand it.

You are right though, it is what it is. I suppose I am just interested in understanding why people do what they do, and this was an intriguing topic of personal relevance to me, and I assumed potentially to others here at this particular moment. But, I agree speculation on the topic is exhausted at this point. Thanks for humoring me anyways.

[swatkat7 → jdrobins2000]

WORD! :D

If time isn't the limiting factor, and I saw on some other thread about pg saying how scalability isn't a bottleneck either (for now), not giving feedback is a choice they have retained. LOVE for pg to comment on this.

[kennethtilton]

"Why not" rings very true and can be taken as encouragement to soldier on. Yes, it would have been great to have YC's backing, but at this point it's a bit of a lottery, isn't it? And if your project cannot succeed without YC, that is not a good sign. Once more into the breach.