

Zombie VC Post – The Bug Report - dmor
http://www.daniellemorrill.com/2013/04/zombie-vc-post-the-bug-report/

======
obviouslygreen
_This index can be improved, but I will not stop publishing it monthly and
even with flaws it helps entrepreneurs focus their efforts on the most active
firms._

Translation: While I understand that this data is seriously flawed, and
continues to be so, I will continue to ignore the fact that what I am
attempting to achieve is impossible with flawed data (or any historical data
taken out of context), and will continue to graciously offer my "help" to
small business owners who do not understand that what I'm presenting them with
is misleading at best and harmful at worst.

I've been neutral at best on this blog for as long as its posts have been
showing up on HN, and while I'm sure it will continue to occasionally make
interesting points, this is sensationalism at best and libel at worst. Posting
this kind of data collation and labeling it very clearly as a list of firms to
be ignored does a disservice to both entrepreneurs looking for sponsors and
VC's looking to sponsor them, but not necessarily looking to sponsor every
initiative that comes along, all the time.

It would not be unreasonable to conclude that this short-sighted effort
actually punishes both entrepreneurs and careful investors. Look at how many
massive successes come out of Silicon Valley. Is there at least one
consistently every six months? That is, one that's such a big hit that the
entire world hears about it? This attitude of "I know what the patterns are
and anyone that doesn't follow them is somehow toxic" ignores the _fact_ that
those who succeed on large scales _are not the ones that follow norms!_

This is extremely frustrating to me, partially because the author persists in
spreading this foolishness, partially because she doesn't understand why it's
foolish, and finally because so many people fail to see that it _is_ foolish.
And destructive.

~~~
gyardley
Absolutely. If you base your actions on bad data, you'll get bad results - and
that original list was painfully bad. I don't know Silicon Valley particularly
well, I but I know that list told you to ignore some of the best, most
helpful, and most active firms in the New York City area - including people
I've raised from, had on my board, and would repeat the experience with in a
second.

Entrepreneurs who just go by this instead of doing their own research (which
really doesn't take that long) are doing themselves a massive disservice.
Which is ironic, because this whole promotion was wrapped in a big bundle of
'rah rah, I'm helping entrepreneurs'. Not at all so.

~~~
dmor
What sources would you suggest they use to do their research? This data was
from Crunchbase which is the first place most entrepreneurs tell me they look,
so I wonder if these New York firms are less motivated to update it. Is there
some other place where they're announcing their deals and signaling to the
community that they are active? I am researching this and would love to know
what sites I should regularly crawl.

New York 500 Startups dude Shai Goldman has a good list going here:
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArI2sAC4lTszdGN...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArI2sAC4lTszdGNxMUhFbmRndm5xbnlfcU5FcDNIekE#gid=0)

~~~
pdeuchler
Why are you looking for "active" VC's? Why is that a metric? It seems to me
that if I were looking for a VC I'd be on the lookout for those who make
fewer, more conscious investments, instead of the standard fund that just
shotguns their money and plays the numbers.

Side Note: A little game theory... it's probably not a good idea to use a data
source (crunchbase) that is heavily influenced by those who you are currently
negotiating with. Sounds a little like back in 2007 when Goldman and Co were
the ones rating the same junk securities they were trying to offload.

~~~
obviouslygreen
Exactly. Clearly this message is somehow _still_ being missed or ignored: The
one metric this list attempts to address just is not as relevant as suggested.

------
neurotech1
She's right. I give Danielle full credit for fully acknowledging the limits of
the Crunchbase data and inaccuracies resulting from that. Some so-called
"journalists" would massage the data to support a sensational story, even if
the raw data showed something completely different.

------
SilconValleyVC
Won't repeat prior post but I personally recommend not relying on crunchbase
and paying for either PrivCo or DowJones VentureSource. They verify everything
and as a wise man said nothing worse than no information except having bad
information and thinking it's correct. <http://www.dowjonesventuresource.com>
<http://www.privco.com/investors>

------
caseysoftware
It's great to see you're iterating on this. I'd love to see where it goes.

I explored Angelist looking for the same data but they also get it from
CrunchBase. :(

------
mrwhy2k
I don't think your first report was bugged, but just by using the TC data and
showing the flaws should hopefully get people to keep it updated.

