[swatkat7]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[swatkat7]

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.