

Labeling A company as YC rejected? Not OK? - knewjax

Is this considered unethical or against the hackernews rules?<p>We label Bandsintown as a rejected company to show perseverance and because i think there is an interest in the companies that are applying to YC wether they made it or not. I am curious to how everyone feels on this issue. 
======
cperciva
Labelling a company as having been rejected by YC is misleading, because it
implies a value judgement which wasn't made. Probably 90% of the people who
visit your website leave without signing up; equally, my understanding is that
most startups (even successful ones) find that 90% of angels and VCs turn them
down. Do you label yourself with the names of all the potential users who
"rejected" you?

As Paul has pointed out in the past, there are many reasons why a company
might not receive funding, and most of them have nothing to do with the merits
of the company itself. Being not accepted by YC doesn't mean that they
necessarily think there's anything wrong with you -- in this case, "not
accepted" is not a synonym for "rejected".

------
mattmaroon
There should be a special logo for YCombinator rejects to display. I humbly
offer
[http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1169/1251010963_4787666411_m....](http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1169/1251010963_4787666411_m.jpg)

~~~
knewjax
Ha i like that.

~~~
andreyf
Why the obsession with YC? Are you making lists of everyone that's ever turned
you down or told you your idea won't fly? If you have a good idea, that'll
turn into a long list...

"We label ourselves as a rejected company to show perseverance..."

I think it shows more of either: a) taking rejection too personally, or b)
mean spirited demonstration that YC made a mistake by not funding you.

Either way, I don't think it's in any way "unethical"... just unwise. If you
think YC made a mistake, and you want them to correct it, explain so in your
application for the next round. If you've changed your mind, and don't want
their support anymore, don't dwell on it and go on with your life.

~~~
mattmaroon
It's definitely kind of neat to see companies that were turned down by YC and
worked on their project anyway. If there were a list of them somewhere
(similar to TechCrunch's deadpool, but a little more cheery) I'd love to read
it.

I'm really curious what percentage of the submissions that get rejected go on
to incorporate and put something out there.

------
pg
There was a rash of startups doing this to get attention a few months ago.
After the first couple we started deleting such descriptions. It's an edge
case, but probably abuse, especially considering the motive.

Which incidentally is probably also a large part of the motive for this post.
If you were really just interested in the abstract question, you could have
avoided the appearance of an ulterior motive by making this a straight
question instead of linking to your original post. Want me to change that for
you?

~~~
brlewis
Where is the abuse in seeking attention by using a _truthful_ description? I
think making a title that catches the attention of news.yc readers is only
abuse if it does not truthfully describe the link it points to.

If there is some other reason why you don't like "YC reject" in titles
(unhealthy us vs them mentality?), why not comment on the submitted article
asking the submitter to edit the title? I'm not affiliated with knewjax, but
it looks to me from his comments that he would be happy to comply. I think
most, if not all, previously-rejected applicants who post here would do the
same.

~~~
euccastro
_Where is the abuse in seeking attention by using a_ truthful _description?_

It is truthful, but it is not a description.

~~~
brlewis
If the site linked to was submitted in a YC application and was not accepted,
then "YC reject" is truthfully an attribute of the linked site. It is as
descriptive as, say, the color scheme the site uses. You may see it as an
uninteresting attribute; others may find it interesting. Voting answers the
interesting/uninteresting question. What the editors do is to answer the
appropriate/inappropriate question.

~~~
euccastro
From your argument follows that any true statement about something is
descriptive. Under that acception, my post is self contradicting.

I was relying on a less inclusive meaning of the word: to describe as in to
relate _intrinsic_ properties of something. Yes, 'intrinsic' itself is a
sloppy concept defined mostly by convention, but that's true for most of our
language. I'll leave it at that, apologize for my sloppy language, and appeal
to common sense.

My point is that the "rejected by YC" tag doesn't add much information,
certainly not enough to merit being in the title. Its main effect is attention
grabbing. Those priorities are inappropriate enough for me, and I support the
banning of this kind of stuff.

------
SwellJoe
You're being silly and it makes me think you have nothing else worth talking
about. There were 400+ apps to the most recent YC program...I don't want to
know if you were one of them. It's relatively interesting when a company is a
YC company, but is distinctly uninteresting that you took 20 minutes out of
your day to fill out the application. That just tells us you had 20 minutes to
spare.

~~~
vegashacker
I think I agree with your main point, but I object to your reasoning. Did you
really spend only 20 minutes on your app? I'm skeptical that it's possible to
literally spend that little time on it and still get accepted to the program.
The app even says, "We look at online demos only for the most promising
applications, so don't skimp on the application because you're relying on a
good demo."

Spread out over a few weeks, we probably spent 24 hours on the app (this
estimate includes tasks like market research, for example, to answer the "who
are your competitors" question). Maybe this seems like a long time, but I
think it takes a long time to come up with well-written, concise prose.

Now, we didn't get accepted, but we did make it to the interview.

~~~
nmeyer
He didn't literally mean 20 minutes. Even if he did, that's not the point he
was trying to make.

~~~
SwellJoe
Actually, in my case I did literally mean 20 minutes. Apologies to folks who
spent significantly longer (and I'm not disparaging you for doing so). It was
merely lack of knowledge on my part that led to me filling it out so quickly.

I didn't even know about the program until the afternoon on which applications
were due--I had seen the Boston one come and go, but would have never
considered a move from Austin to Boston...by the time I realized there was one
in CA, it was close to too late. I submitted it within hours of the deadline,
and had dozens of other things going on at the same time. I looked back over
it later (before going for the interview in Boston), and it was pretty bad,
except in a few spots where deep knowledge of our field and code overwhelmed
the slapdash nature of the thing as a whole.

If it makes you feel better, we just scraped by, on the obvious difficulty of
the problems that we had already solved when we arrived for the interview (and
even then pg was not on board with what we were doing...I'm pretty certain we
owe our acceptance entirely to Trevor and rtm, who have done system
administration and recognized the pain that our product takes away, while pg
seemingly couldn't figure out why we would even want to address those
problems).

But, you're absolutely right: It's not the point I was trying to make.

s/20 minutes/2 fortnights/g and the intent is the same.

~~~
vegashacker
Congrats on wasting no time, then. That's a great story, btw. Thanks for
sharing.

------
knewjax
Is this considered unethical or against the hackernews rules?

We label Bandsintown as a rejected company to show perseverance and because i
think there is an interest in the companies that are applying to YC wether
they made it or not. I am curious to how everyone feels on this issue.

~~~
blored
Naw, I don't mind. Editors probably feel a bit protective of YC though, maybe
that's why the title got edited, because the word 'reject' has some negative
connotations.

~~~
knewjax
Yeah I agree. With so many startups launching it just seemed logical to
highlight YC applicants here.

~~~
knewjax
Maybe in the future companies could just use "YC funded company" or "YC
applicant" if they felt the need to highlight it.

------
Goladus
I recommend reading the forum and just waiting around for the next time
someone asks "Have we heard from any companies that got rejected and still
went forward?"

