I find these lists of "RFSs" and the earlier list of ideas rather disappointing... I don't think that formulating a problem in such general terms is really useful and I don't think it works at all to create such a "framework" for an idea which someone just comes and fills in with the concrete details. It really reminds me of academic grant applications where there is some grand vision laid out for 5 years, in which only the details need to be worked out. However, the details are all that matter, without the "how to do it" I don't think such ideas add anything valuable.
The line "Ex-Googlers would be particularly well suited to this project" is again the kind of credential-based test that large organizations and the government would like. This all starts to sound much less than the startup-culture that PG talks about in his essays. In this context, using a bit more informal language than in grant proposals and job adverts is slowly becoming a bit gimmicky.
I agree with your point that credentialism is counter to the notion of what we've been told YC is about. Yet, pg has always said that they want to see indicators of past performance and success, and working at Google is a pretty darn good one (usually).
Edit: I am curious about pg's thoughts on the balance between relying on strong signals from applicants (e.g. being a serial entrepreneur, working at Google, getting a PhD) to avoid false negatives, versus taking a risk and accepting teams that may be more likely to fail (false positives).
Regarding the efficacy of the RFSs: they've done the market research for you. If the proposal can eliminate a few free variables in your analysis, then you've only got to focus on the ones that remain undetermined. Furthermore, we've found that having someone pose a well-asked question can be enough to get us answering that question in a new way, and driven to build what we envision.
There was also a list of startup ideas that YC likes posted earlier which comes with less description of the final product:
http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html
[+] [-] lkozma|16 years ago|reply
The line "Ex-Googlers would be particularly well suited to this project" is again the kind of credential-based test that large organizations and the government would like. This all starts to sound much less than the startup-culture that PG talks about in his essays. In this context, using a bit more informal language than in grant proposals and job adverts is slowly becoming a bit gimmicky.
[+] [-] rw|16 years ago|reply
Edit: I am curious about pg's thoughts on the balance between relying on strong signals from applicants (e.g. being a serial entrepreneur, working at Google, getting a PhD) to avoid false negatives, versus taking a risk and accepting teams that may be more likely to fail (false positives).
Regarding the efficacy of the RFSs: they've done the market research for you. If the proposal can eliminate a few free variables in your analysis, then you've only got to focus on the ones that remain undetermined. Furthermore, we've found that having someone pose a well-asked question can be enough to get us answering that question in a new way, and driven to build what we envision.
[+] [-] ianbishop|16 years ago|reply
There was also a list of startup ideas that YC likes posted earlier which comes with less description of the final product: http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html
[+] [-] nanijoe|16 years ago|reply