Tell HN: Apply HN applications now closed, let's discuss the next step
Applications for Apply HN closed a few hours ago. Now we need a way to sift through the threads and give the community a final say.
A few users have suggested that we create a list of applications that had the most interest, then run a poll to let the community produce a final ranking. That seems reasonable, so we can tentatively consider that the default plan, depending on what other ideas appear in this thread.
Unfortunately I have to be offline most of today, but I'll read and respond to the comments here tonight.
Edit (11 PM Pacific): I'm back now but just too tired and need time to think about this. Sorry. More in the next couple days.
123 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 183 ms ] threadGiven the voting patterns on some of the Apply HNs so far, I hope that the voting ring detector on the poll is extra-strict. :P
(Fortunately, such patterns have been in in the minority of Apply HN submissions from what I've noticed, though.)
Edit: or maybe the cases where "everyone thought" "yup, that's perfect", upvote and no comments is an indication of fraud?
Also, after ApplyHN became randomized (around midway thru the experiment) it seemed like discussion dramatically fell again, but it was definitely tough to tell since refreshing showed new applications every time.
Fun experiment though and I'm excited to see what types of projects the community picks.
When ranked by upvotes, of the top 5 applications, 2 were posted after the first 3 days.(https://medium.com/@ApplyHN/top-5-applyhn-submissions-ranked...)
And 6 applications posted in the first 3 days reach top 10 and only 4 from the remaining 18 days.
Personally, cadwolf (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11441930) was the most interesting to me. I think they're biting off too much... but it's an opportunity rich environment.
This is indeed a huge bite, but it has the legitimate potential to change the way we design and build everything. The comments on the original thread are closed, but I'd be happy to answer any questions in this thread.
Sort of ironically, my attempts to report a bug, and request a feature, have both been stymied; one by a 500 error, and one with a warning from chrome that synchronous xhr requests have been deprecated.
I am also in the process of moving from a lamp stack to python/Django on AWS. I'll have to look at the ssl and see what's happening.
Would like to see a way to help contribute to product / market fit on this and other Apply HN's, btw.
If you want to contact me, you can get my email from the team page on cadwolf.
For example, I have MATLAB generate figures and *.tex files containing LaTeX formatted tables. I have C# Solidworks macros to generate PDFs of CAD. If the analysis changes, the MATLAB outputs automatically update, and the same with CAD files. These 'outputs' get picked up by LaTeX on compile. Other than a WYSIWYG editor vs a 'compiler', are there any fundamental benefits to the cadwolf workflow you're envisioning?
1. A direct link between the CAD, the math, and the documentation. I don't believe that Solidworks will update its models without pulling the matlab output onto the server and the documentation won't update without creating the PDFs and pulling them into the PDFs.
2. CADWOLF will allow you the ability to create template items like fittings or trusses that consist of a CAD model and the math. Your junior engineers drop this into their designs and give defined inputs like loads and the truss redesigns itself.
3. The part tree system organizes all of these facets and gives you the ability to see real time system weight/cost/whatever instead of having your people update spreadsheets.
4. A link between your work and neighboring parts/systems. Although the stack you described "works" whenever the jackhole sitting in the cube next to you updates his model, you have to wait for him to tell you and then go through the entire redesign/upload/redo process. CADWOLF will see those changes and update accordingly.
5. One system vs Matlab, Solidworks, C#, PDFs, LaTex, etc. Since it is browser based, it can be seen by anyone/anywhere. This is more logistics, but it prevents you from having like six pieces of software running and it prevents you from making a mistake somewhere.
6. Scale. We will have an AWS server side that can be scaled up instead of being limited to your desktop. This will also help small companies that don't want to buy large computing systems.
7. Process. Since you have access to every person's documentation for a system through a part tree, you can open that doc and check their work from anywhere. A checkoff system will eventually be implemented.
I did something similar to what you are doing with all of the different pieces of software. It really doesn't seem that bad until you realize that it could all be done automatically. There are also far fewer engineers capable of doing what you are doing than most people realize. You're like in the top 10% of production in my experience.
Let's talk about that, since we're on the subject. Most of the ideas presented in Apply HN submissions reminded me of the old "Idea Sunday" threads. To quote dang (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7693640)
> Having all these ideas in one place makes the whole less than the sum of its parts. [...] Ideas are better in the wild. Let's discuss them as they come up organically, rather than try to organize an idea-fest.
The most popular Apply HN submissions I've seen are "LinkedIn that does not suck!" which is not a high bar of innovation. However...that is the bar for the YC Fellowship, which allows for unformed ideas, so I'm unsure whether I should be criticizing such submissions.
So many ideas are amazing. May the best ideas win. I think for the ones that do make to top list but not to yc fellowship, it would be really helpful for them if one of the YC partners can provide brief feedback/advice/direction to them.
Of course somebody has to miss these things, you can't reach everyone. It just feels strange when it's you.
I would love to see the pattern of how those 300+ submitters came to hear of it.
http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/06/y-combinator-flirts-with-ha...
1) Filter out troll applications and applications with fake votes and other ineligible applications.
2) From the sanitized list find out the top 10
3) Start a poll where users can choose from the top 10 (but don't rank them in the poll, randomize the placements and don't show live voting stats to prevent bias)
4) Give every applicant on the poll the opportunity to post why one should vote for within a short word limit. As we have seen from low engagement after the first few days, extremely few users will read 10 complete threads and make their choice.
How exactly do you identify "troll" applications? The most important ideas are often the most likely to be perceived as an act of trolling.
Accusing me of trolling is not just dismissive, but implies I'm acting in bad faith. That's a pretty serious thing to say about someone.
Not necessarily. I troll people all the time by saying things that are true but sound wrong to the average person, and never in bad faith. PG and Zed Shaw frequently do the same thing, albeit in different ways, and I wouldn't say that they're acting in bad faith either.
To the extent the book Made To Stick is correct that people are much more likely to become engaged with and ultimately remember things that seem wrong or counterintuitive at first, trolling at it's best is just a highly effective didactic technique.
The OP is referring to Pinboard which was a joke submission.
Otherwise the submission is perfectly fine. :p
"The only restrictions on acceptable teams are founders must be willing to work on their ideas full-time, and teams can’t have previously taken money from investors."
What if we haven’t yet received investment, but we have a ton of traction, users, revenue, etc.?
We want YC Fellowship to really help teams that are just starting off, or have been struggling to get traction. If you’re doing really well, we’ll likely ask you to apply for the next batch of Y Combinator.
In this case, the normal selection process has been changed by throwing the decision to Hacker News. And the people have spoken!
One issue with having a single poll is that there is the possibility that a good startup will miss out due to statistic abnormality.
We're somewhere in the top group of entries with 43 points. I wanted to say that regardless of whether or not we get selected, we really appreciated the ideas and exposure that came from our discussions on HN. A handful of our first clients named HN as the reason why they came to us! Some of the ideas discussed are already being planned for our service. We applied to YC the regular way, and didn't get in. This way we got a bunch of feedback and some traction. Net positive for us.
Dang asked above how best to sift through the applications to give the community final say. I was reading through some of the ideas posted here on how to do that, the one that seem to resonate here with me was the one abhi3 posted above. I'm just worried that a public vote is easily gamed.
Another way to do this is to select the top 10, and get the YC partners (or some trusted groups within YC - perhaps the last group of YC alum?) to vote on the list of 10. I think it would be nice to see what the end vote looks like (release the vote count), and have select YC partners provide some quick feedback for those who are voted on.
Thanks again.
Moreover, we were rejected the standard YC way too but have got some really great feedback from the HN community which we're implementing already!
I just think the whole Apply HN buzz fizzled out, favouring those that got in on day 1..we were about a week late..
-1st round: Submit application (with this we get all submitions and all users that spent time submiting so we already have filtered users that have knowledge on startups)
-2nd round: Every user that submited for 1st round gets to pick for example 3 of 10 other random submitions we present to them that are then evaluated on that votes (This way we avoid ring voting and dumb mass voting. Note that for next cycle we can allow users from previous cycle to evaluate too!)
Statistics/Data Analysis As a Service.
SponsorGigs: Event / Sponsors Matching Service.
925: Job Search Assistant Via SMS.
NextAppointment: Automatically Suggests Your Next Dental/Doctor Appointment based on Your Availability and Theirs.
Knowledge Maps: Curated Links for Specific Topics.
Signl.FM: Medium, Twitter for Voice/Audio.
Automate: Bookkeeping & Accounting automated.
Remember: Google For All Your Files.
Agora: Debate Local Issues.
Therapy: P2P Therapy Phone Calls.
Wanderlust: Recommended Trips Based on Budget.
AuthorInvestments: Fund Works You Like in Exchange of Future Royalties.
Social Network for Farmers.
Krewe: Make New Friends Where You Live.
I think it's possible to game the system as it is now. You can get your buddies to upvote you, submit at the right time, etc.
My take is that this would sort of parallel the regular YC process of application->interview->selection except that it would eliminate "rolling selection". My gut is that the implication of "rolling selection" may have encouraged problematic "Apply HN" strategies. Not to mention it's too late for it to be part of this cycle anyway.
Good luck.
You should give the money to Pinboard.
> I feel like after seven years, I have a pretty good sense of what bookmarking/archiving needs people have, but am at the limits of what I can personally build. If the votes swing my way, I'd be happy to have a good-faith conversation with you.[0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11441978
At $20,000 for the YC Fellowship, it seems like an absolute steal. I for one would love to see the results of this experiment.
The problem which I understood the Fellowship to be addressing is that so many later stage companies apply to YC that it is very difficult for a pre-revenue company to compete.
If YC 'should' invest in Pinboard, why not invest as part of YC and not YC Fellowship?
- Single founder, not a large group
- Hasn't raised any outside capital
- Working on idea full time.
He's even local to YC!
The YCF page says you don't need traction to apply. It doesn't say you can't have traction.
Moreover, it turns out that the funding structure for "Apply HN" is "YCF terms". But that doesn't mean "Apply HN" and "YCF" are the same concept.
Finally, isn't Pinboard basically running away with the HN vote for "Apply HN" at this point?
Personally, if I could only pick one, I'd pick Eat My Dust - Home testing for dangerous materials. I know there's products that do this already, but I think there's a lot more that could be done.
Before I launch into an argument for how to conduct the selection process I wanted to say thanks to everyone who contributed to Apply HN. The feedback and support that we received went beyond our wildest expectations and regardless of what happens we're glad we participated.
<argument>With that being said, I would suggest that upvotes and comments should have serious weight in the decision of who receives the fellowship. My understanding of this process was that it was an opportunity for members of HN to express their voice in the YCF selection process and it seems to me that the way they do so is via comments and upvotes. While the idea of a "runoff" selection with the top five or top ten most upvoted posts is appealing in practice it also disregards much of the work that the community put into vetting and discussing existing submissions. A runoff also doesn't solve the problem that it purports to solve, that some submissions got more structural attention than others, because it is also being conducted on an anonymous message board over an arbitrarily selected period of time (not unlike the first 20 odd days of Apply HN). As an example, someone who had the chance to vote or comment on ApplyHN might miss the runoff because of a bad week at work, and that means that their voices could be washed out.
I have a vested interest in saying this, but I am skeptical (until I see data) of all of the oblique suggestions that the front runners' posts only made it there because of bandwagoning. I like to think that we, along with many of the other front runners, presented a strong idea that deserved the attention it got. A separate but related point is that this is HN, not a randomized controlled experiment in selecting companies, so the habits and voting patterns of the community should be seen as a feature rather than a bug.
If I were running this selection process I would say that some combination of comments + upvotes + the judgment of the partners who will work with these companies would be the best way to choose the fellowship recipients.
But, that's just me :). </argument>
Thanks again to everyone who upvoted, asked questions, and gave feedback. More thoughts + feedback are always welcome. (I'm at gajbotelho@gmail.com if anyone wants to reach out privately.)
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11452884
EDIT: Small edits for clarity.
EDIT2: Removed "(a more focused version of /u/baron816's suggestion)" because it just wasn't that accurate of a statement
I think you and all other applicants deserved all the community interest they got.
What is being highlighted by myself, and other users (who have no vested interest, unlike me and you) is that engagement did fall off sharply after the first 2-3 days. As a result of which applications submitted after the first few days didn't receive the as much scrutiny from the community.
HN ranks posts by upvotes/square of time since submission. It is possible that a mere 2-3 votes can make the difference between a post reaching the front page and receiving several times more eyeballs vs getting buried. And the sharp drop in interest in ApplyHN's from the community can and did make such a difference for several applicants.
Also, I think in order to give more reliability to the HN votes and ranking we need to find a way to give a similar exposure to all the applications, this would make up for other bias like time of submission.
One idea is to feature a subset of the applications in the front-page for a given amount of time. (not sure if that's what you're trying to do with /applyrand)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11586948
I could have submitted an idea like this:
I would probably get about 3-4 upvotes on HN, but a "stupid" idea(s) like this could easily get 1+ million app users the same way "Yo" did.What you guys should have used the Apply HN for is to fund ideas like "open-source as a business". Rather give that money to GitLab-type ideas so that even if the founders fizzle out, the IP remains in the open and can be used by everyone.
"Give food to the poor and needy" often understandably has more appeal and is a quicker reference point to the normal citizen than the stuff we do: "Hey it's becoming more dangerous than ever for a small amount of the people who deliver the food to the poor and needy, so let's think of a open source technical approach way to make it easier." Both are very worthy/important, but some messages are just easier/clearer for people in a voting process.
Question: Why don't you require all Apply HN applicants to complete the full YCF application, and open those applications to the HN community? Each YCF application includes an option to generate a corresponding Apply HN thread. Comments from the HN community are made available to YC reviewers. The applicant consents to disclosure by ticking the Apply HN box.
Anyone who posted an Apply HN thread could have just lodged their own YCF application anyway, which the YC team would have had to review and determine in the usual way—but completing the application mandates a baseline level of information about the applicant's team and startup. So why not leverage the existing process and help the HN community help you to review them.
Unfortunately none of that will help you choose applicants from among the existing Apply HN threads (sorry), but it might be worth considering for the next stage of the experiment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11442038
I think the best option might be for someone at YC (Dan this is going to be you) to make a top 20 list and ask those applicants to put in a longer application that we can then rank and comment on - the 2000 character limit of the initial application process was too limiting in my opinion to use for the final ranking.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11477879