This idea is really good! (I'm socially average I would say, more on the outgoing side, and I see my friends totally going for this. If I think of 10 friends randomly (single or otherwise), and give them $20 credit towards either eHarmony or this, I see them all - except maybe one or two who are aggressively looking for a relationship, choosing Grouper). However, if I think of 10 random friends of mine from those whom I think are most likely to join a dating site - 9/10 of those would go for eHarmony or something because they are looking to get in a relationship and not just play around. Bravo! You just have one thing to look out for - mismatched expectations. I think females will like this more than males because they will feel more secure and they like to get input from girlfriends generally.
This will be a success. One of the things our church has done is something called 'dinner for 7' which is a system whereby people opt in that they are interested in meeting new people, and the church sets up a group of 7 who then agree to meet and have some dinners together (nominally hosted from house to house). It really helps you meet folks, interact and engage with them. It 'forces' what would otherwise have to be a very random event (you found yourself in a group they were in at some social event).
Why 7? I hate odd numbers of peoples in groups, most people tend to pair off in their conversation sitting at a table in my experience. If you're the odd man/woman out... it's awkward.
Well you have to understand that this was something the church was doing and Christians have a thing for numbers, 7 being one of them.
That being said, I always assumed that it was because it would create conversational tension, that it encouraged people to keep engaging in conversations. It seemed to work well in that regard in my experience.
I'll ping the organizer and see if there was any deep significance here or if it was just "I don't know, how about 7?" kind of thing.
I've found that odd numbers tend to keep the conversation going. If the odd person is remotely assertive, they will interject to avoid being left out. This keeps the conversation moving from topic to topic without getting stuck with two people talking past each other.
I've found that, regardless of odd or even numbers, I am often the only one not talking to anyone at the table. I'm not awkward or too shy, but I guess sometimes I'm not assertive enough or I just like listening in to other conversations more.
I used to think the same. But watch everyone else: aside from the really confident/pushy/needy types there are times for everyone when they are "out of the loop" a bit too. You just don't notice so much as you are either in a conversation (or actively listening to one) at the time. Also you may mistake someone else listening in attentively as someone being an actively interested party in the dynamic where they are in fact listening in because it is the best way at the time not to be out of all conversations.
The old adage "you are not as lonely as you think you are" (replace lonely with ignored/unhappy/bored/whatever) tends to be wrong (IMO), but "other people are just as out of it as you are" is generally true. The world would be more content in general if more people realised this: a lot of depression and anger tends to be magnified by the feeling that everyone else is having a better time of it when that often is not the case.
For the record, the "Auction House" is something my buddies & I refer to as the "Vampire Cougar Bar."
The place has fancy red velvet furniture, oil portraits on the wall, and a dark feel. It's sometimes full of older women who seem to be looking for younger men. We don't fill that bill anymore, but sometimes someone younger friends can be suckered^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hconvinced into coming along. Good times, good times.
> We took our $400 travel reimbursement check from YC and
> used that as seed capital for Grouper
I once returned a book to Amazon. If I used that money to fund a startup, it'd be rather disingenuous to call that Amazon-funded. Makes for a good headline though.
This has the potential to go viral. $20 with free drinks is not bad. Initially it might be awkward but I feel that if the matching is good enough connections can start easily. I would add that they send each participant a summary of each other's profile if they haven't already thought about it. This will give all parties some insight and tool to start a productive conversation.
> I would add that they send each participant a summary of each other's profile
I would be okay if they don't. Privacy matters aside, it lets everyone present themselves at the meet-up as they want to, and not be judged by some small sampling of pictures or posts on their profile.
Actually, I think these are both valid approaches and it's a decision the company has to make.
In this case, I can see how not sharing that info would make for a more exciting experience. e.g some magical algorithm paired me and my friends up with random other folks. I'd go along just to see how well it worked.
True. I think the company will figure this out by the time they have enough information from their beta users. It's really difficult to predict how people will react to a new environment because we often assume we know what we will do on certain situations. I have surprised myself a few times on how I reacted to new situations.
Also, the way they're currently doing it would probably attract the more adventurous users anyway (since there are more unknowns). On balance, I think that's likely to be a better approach for them.
Nothing too detailed of course. The participant can have it as an option and decide what information can be included. Things like "I'm into rock climbing" or "I like Physics".... maybe nothing more than a few sentences. The key is giving participants the option. This could help "break the ice" because we are letting complete strangers meet. I would not include adding pictures as an option though.
So it's not a date, but you do have to have 3 men and 3 women? If it's not a date, then why the gender requirement? And why match on attractiveness?
If it is a date but for whatever reason they don't want to say so (I'm guessing because of the social stigma around online dating in some circles -- check out the description of Blendr: it's exactly like Grindr but it's totally different), what about gay people?
So it's not a date, but you do have to have 3 men and 3 women? If it's not a date, then why the gender requirement? And why match on attractiveness?
Because when the average person wants to have fun, he or she usually is looking for a gender balanced group with attractiveness levels similar to him/her. Even a tangential experience with greek life or the party scene while in college gives you a pretty good feel for why this is the case. There's actually significant strategy and human capital that gets devoted to achieving a gender balance for your average college event.
> he or she usually is looking for a gender balanced group with attractiveness levels similar to him/her
is this really the case? I mean, it's hard enough for me to find other gay guys, but if even heterosexuals are established in a forced equal balance solely based on gender... what hope have I?
I have no idea whether gay people prefer a gender balanced group and didn't mean to speak for them in my original comment. I was commenting on the average social event; the gay population, while sizable, does not represent the average case. Of course this means there is an opportunity for arbitrage if a main player neglects the gay community, and Grouper may well be doing just that.
You obviously don't know NYC very well. Those first three questions are the exact same questions that went through my mind when I first looked at the hiring practices of the investment bank I work at. So is it a date? No, NY is really the loneliest place in the world. No one there is banging, even if they're obsessed with being surrounded by the most attractive people of the opposite sex.
Their big problem is where they're going to find all of those girls. Only going to get close to those ratios in the Northeast around college towns.
That article is a great example on a startup providing a compelling story for coverage by media. I don't doubt that they used the 400$ given by YC for Grouper but the 400$ probably was not the limiting factor.
This platform could potentially take social networking to the next level, getting strangers with similar interest to actually meet. And not just on a dating/adult level, but on a wholesome and casual scenario. People don't do this because of our social and cognitive limitations. I guess having an algorithm to do the picks takes out that awkward task. They say that a stranger is a friend you just haven't met yet, well, we will find out.
Yes, I would be a lot more into social networking if there was an opportunity to actually meet new people. However, I am still confused by the gender requirements.
What exactly is this if it's not a date? Or kinda a date? Or "something that might be possibly misconstrued as a date"?
I guess calling it "not a date" will create a more casual and less awkward environment where people can meet and connect. But it's quite obvious that the 3 male and 3 female set up is designed to match up people of the opposite sex.
Sounds like a great idea, but no matter the temptation I can't get the courage to give third parties complete access to my FB profile. Is there anyway you could have "access all photos" to "access profile photos", or put some sort of limitations on what you access?
We applied to YC with paperbuff.com. In the 36 hours before
our interview, we ditched paperbuff and built qomments.com,
were rejected, then decided to build a product people would
actually want
I am sorry, but this is ridiculous. This is not only a waste of everyone's time in YC, but it also takes away an opportunity from other people who could have pitched in their place. There is really nothing "LOL" about it.
I believe these are exactly the type of people YC wants. A couple of friends know they want to start something. They do not know what. Instead of brainstorming over beers, they toy with concepts between redbulls. One mvp catches on. Proves profitable. They stick with it.
pg's said many times that they primarily look at the people rather than the idea. It probably wasn't (just) paperbuff that got them to the interview stage. Just sayin.
Well, it doesn't matter. Do you think it makes much sense to invest in people who decide to pitch an idea that is not even 2 days old? Or rather - in people who think it's acceptable to do that? Hm.
I don't disagree with you, I just think that YC is all about young energetic people willing to put the effort in, so pitching a 2 days old idea with passion is kind of showing off some energy !
I went through TechStars Seattle last year and now have the privilege of watching the 2011 class from up close, since my company has remained in the same co-working space.
Everyone says that ideas are bullshit, but there isn't anything much like watching the evolution of your own idea and that of nine of groups of peers. But, it wasn't really until this year, watching ten budding companies from the outside, that it became so hilariously apparent that no first time entrepreneur has any fucking clue what they are doing.
I've overheard some of the companies pitch half a dozen ideas in a single afternoon. At least one or two of these wildly off course teams are the ones who are showing promise of discovering deep insight into their respective markets. For some teams, bouncing around is simply part of the process.
So this is a triple "non date"? That sounds like it has a lot of potential to be awkward. What kind of social engineering goes into picking the people?
