On: Ask HN: Who got rejected in earlier cycles of YC application and made it anyway?

[pg]

We've definitely missed good startups. But one advantage of having so many competitors is that we're much more likely now to learn when we screw up. When a startup from one of the other YC-like organizations does well, I often check their YC application to see how we missed them. Usually it's because they were good guys but working on a terrible idea, which they later changed. So in response to that we now make a conscious effort to pay less attention to the idea and more to the people when we read applications.

[froo → pg]

Ok, what about if the opposite was true?

How do you handle situations where the idea is (in your opinion) great but the person is perhaps lacking for whatever reason?

Is this a situation where you pass or do you take a proverbial punt? Have you done so in the past (don't need to name names to save someone's ego)

[pg → froo]

We wouldn't fund a group if the founders were really lacking, e.g. if they seemed uncommitted, or not smart enough to build whatever they were planning to.

[cperciva → pg]

    we now make a conscious effort to pay less
    attention to the idea and more to the people
    ...
    We wouldn't fund [people who were] not smart
    enough to build whatever they were planning to

These comments don't seem entirely non-contradictory. Wouldn't you ever say "I don't think you're smart enough to make that work, but how about working on a less ambitious problem"?

[froo → pg]

Cheers for the reply Paul

[csomar → pg]

But people change as the idea do, no?

[p6 → pg]

So in other words the rejects can now infer its because they suck, and not just their idea.