HN user

tim2

200 karma

tim2.yc@gmail

Posts3
Comments192
View on HN

My strategy has always entertained me because the guys I've known were so thrilled about their rediculous "world changing" idea that they were crushed to find that hardly any outsourcers were even interested:)

Yours will work well enough, but I also like to test to see if anyone is actually determined enough to go through all this trouble and carry out their plan anyway. Serious entrepreneurs are very few in this part of the country...

Two things: 1) It would be great to have more reasonably good people here. 2) But I just don't want the scoring to be screwed up. If the voting keeps stuff that's only of interest to people who are into hacking and startups on the front page then other people will simply not stick around.

PG, please consider action for #2. Don't go with the "show everyone different rankings" approach of reddit though.

Even the least skillful trolls mask their ill intent by blending in and maintaining a non-descript tone. This is done in order to get past the "human spam filter." If you run stupidity detection based purely on the contents of their comments then you run the risk of simply banning controversial topics or people with bad spelling instead of controversial (trolling, roughly) behavior.

To better detect trolling behavior, I'd focus on responses:

- Content of the responses. Lots of shouting? Length.

- Number of responders. 50x more replies than you would otherwise expect from the thread?

- Depth of thread. Conversation still dragging on after all sane people have left?

- Timing of responses. Heated arguments leave no time for cooling off.

So measure effect of the troll, and your system won't have to try to understand what he's saying.

+ But you were referring to "stupid" measuring based on the submitters data may work just fine.

[nevermind] ---Untrue. Unless your product has already shown considerable traction or you're a startup legend, it is 100% percent certain that they will not accept you as a single founder.

Not making a judgement on this policy, it just seems fair for people to know before they take the time to apply as a single founder.

You do realize that this is the antithesis of the core reason of why startups work, yes?

What's fundamental is that it is those few abnormal people who change the world 1000x more than the regular person. When you have near infinite money like Google, I'd be very afraid of missing out on those few people who are going to carry the company.

YC Clone In Seattle 18 years ago

There's an economic principal on how specialization can increase output for the same amount of work. Otherwise, clearly some failed startups can tell that they're doomed before they finally give up and this might give them something more valuable to do?

Will be interesting to see this strategy tested.

Google does give almost everything away for free. Apple's... users are pretty ruthless by proxy (alright, got me there).

YC Clone In Seattle 18 years ago

> Five percent of the equity in each company will be distributed in a pool to be shared by other Founders Co-op firms.

Smart way to encourage people to help each other.

Utilizing reputations through clustering of voting histories in order to produce their recommendations is a pretty good description of what's going on there now. Next they're planning on giving you even more control by allowing you to control who you trust directly. This combined system should be the special sauce that really solves this problem, I think.