I don't like that idea. Part of what makes Hacker News great is the forced absence of comment self-promotion/signatures and a extremely high focus on what's being said rather than who says it.
Anecdotally, if I find myself particularly interested in what someone says I'll visit their profile to learn more about them.
>What I hadn’t seemed to realise (and I’m sure I’m not the only one), is that this fourth day is where angel funds and VC’s pay upwards of £50,000 to attend (no kidding!)
its a pretty disingenuous of phrasing it, the panel that sees the final pitches are limited to the people who have invested into seedcamp (or are part of the seedcamp team etc)
and while I am at it they dont pay for "exclusive access" to the startups plans either, there is an entire week at which you can ask the startup any questions you like.
whether having an open or closed investor day is the best solution I certainly dont know, but I am pretty sure the motives arent as insidious as implied
its like complaining that I wasnt allowed in the room when pg / jessica interviewed and decided on the yc teams, there are 2 other events much more along the lines of demo day later on.
Your explanation does not seem all that accurate either.
What if pg/jessica had allowed a bunch of people to sit through interviews? Then, some administrative staff decides to kick out one guy.
That would be a more accurate description from what I read here(based on the OP + Seedcamp's response).
Philosophicals--like whether investors should be in the room or not--are totally irrelavant here. What matters is what was promised and whether Seedcamp broke that promise for one individual(for whatever reason).
It seems like Seedcamp has too many cooks in the kitchen. The whole idea of having "official" mentors seems to have backfired here. You have a mentor complaining that investors are treated better than them. The solution to that is to get rid of this whole "mentor" label.
You never hear much about weekly YC speakers. That YC keeps it a low key affair is telling I think.
reshma is not "administrative staff", she is the ceo
since the format is more formal than a sit down interview I imagine they didnt want to disrupt a team half way through a presentation to ask someone to leave.
They either have a heart attack or walk off a cliff. This is rare, but there are a lot of these spiders. In areas where they live, it's common to see them sitting in giant webs above streets and hiking trails. Waiting.
I guess I should have specified valuable keywords. I don't have a SpyFu account, but if "7up cake" and variants are examples of their best keywords, I wouldn't call that a big win.
Yeah, there was another post talking about how important context is. The basic functionality of DailyBooth isn't that different, but the communities are almost nothing alike -- except, of course, for the memes that originated on 4chan.
And it worked, right? Instead of complaining about the way the world works, perhaps it's more rewarding to exploit it and become better at framing your work in a way that fits with how the average Joe sees the world.
People reading this should instead take note that Farhad is pushing a web 2.5 theory and therefore might be more receptive to pitches that fit his outlook.
His job is to filter out all the noise to present a semi-coherent view of the tech scene to upper-to-middle class consumers. Concepts like web 2.5 are his way of guiding the reader through a world they're probably only visiting.
I'm not complaing, just making fun of :). It probably worked in terms of sales. But unfortunately it has the unintended consequences of all these people trying to coin unnecessary gobbledygook words when simple English will suffice. Now sometimes reading a newspaper article feels like sitting through a business school class. IMHO if anything making up terms and introducing more jargon just makes communication harder.
>Many of the basics are now essentially free, which means a business built on the infrastructure laid down by the first two generations of Web companies can gain scale on a shoestring budget, all while giving away its products and services for free. Call it Web 2.5.
Or in other words, things have become cheaper and it's easier to start a web company. Call it technology. Also, this has been true for much longer than the author acknowledges. He's trying to a fit a company into his cookie cutter view of the internet while coining an unnecessary word.
Your perspective seems to have more to due with pitching him than the merits of the article.
