[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?