Show HN: GetFounder. A unique way to find your ideal startup partner
17 comments
I see one issue, and have one question.
First, the "issue." Taking the location from what the browser gives you, and not allowing a way to override or specify it explicitly, might lead to weird results. For example, if I found the site and browsed to it while traveling to - say - Boston, but "my" city is really - say - Chapel Hill, then my signup "vote" will count for the wrong place no? Or couldn't variances in granularity affect that... so, if I signup while sitting at work in Morrisville, but I really consider myself to be "part of" Chapel Hill, is it going to work out correctly?
The question: How is this going to be different from http://www.startupwithme.com/ They're already doing a "co-founder matching" sort of thing... How do you differentiate yourself from them?
First, the "issue." Taking the location from what the browser gives you, and not allowing a way to override or specify it explicitly, might lead to weird results. For example, if I found the site and browsed to it while traveling to - say - Boston, but "my" city is really - say - Chapel Hill, then my signup "vote" will count for the wrong place no? Or couldn't variances in granularity affect that... so, if I signup while sitting at work in Morrisville, but I really consider myself to be "part of" Chapel Hill, is it going to work out correctly?
The question: How is this going to be different from http://www.startupwithme.com/ They're already doing a "co-founder matching" sort of thing... How do you differentiate yourself from them?
I'll try to address both of these points, but forgive me if they aren't too helpful.
Your issue is a fair one, and my only response is that I assume that those who sign-up away from home are in a the minority. Of course the statistics will be slightly skewed, but I still believe that even when taking this into account, the winning city will have won fairly.
To be able to answer your question, I'd have to give away a bit more about the concept than I'm willing to at this point, so I hope this explanation helps:
Advanced metrics don't work. Long, boring resumes don't work. Nothing can be more helpful than just getting into coffee shop with someone and having a chat about ideas that really excite you. GetFounder is about getting entrepreneurs and technical people who share the same vision into that situation.
We have one or two 'profile' fields that overlap with those found on sites like StartupWithMe, but I believe that GetFounder's true potential is found in its simplicity.
I don't think you'll have seen matchmaking like this. I really cant wait to show it to you!
Your issue is a fair one, and my only response is that I assume that those who sign-up away from home are in a the minority. Of course the statistics will be slightly skewed, but I still believe that even when taking this into account, the winning city will have won fairly.
To be able to answer your question, I'd have to give away a bit more about the concept than I'm willing to at this point, so I hope this explanation helps:
Advanced metrics don't work. Long, boring resumes don't work. Nothing can be more helpful than just getting into coffee shop with someone and having a chat about ideas that really excite you. GetFounder is about getting entrepreneurs and technical people who share the same vision into that situation.
We have one or two 'profile' fields that overlap with those found on sites like StartupWithMe, but I believe that GetFounder's true potential is found in its simplicity.
I don't think you'll have seen matchmaking like this. I really cant wait to show it to you!
Sounds good. Can't wait for the beta, then. :-)
If you have not done so already I would look at the algorithms that E-harmony, Zoosk and Match.com use to link people up. Because most co-founders will tell you that when they entered into a business partnership it was like entering into a relationship as well. Additionally if you are looking to match start-up co-founders together I think it would be better to focus on close proximity geographic locations, such as Bay Area, LA basin, San Diego.
Our focus is on local matches. Thanks for the algorithm suggestions. We definitely agree on the similarity between partnership and relationship.
How do you look at their algorithms? Aren't they private?
The algorithm is private, but these sites function in a straight forward manner. Think of it as psychology coding 101.
The easiest way to emulate is this process is through a numerical scale. Take into account social indicators such as personality type (A,B), age, affluence, beliefs, values, perspectives, and most importantly what you are looking for in the other person. These scores are then "coded" by attributing a number to each answer which is then added or subtracted depending upon response. These values ultimately create a number and that number is "matched" with similar numbers (matrix matching) and you can layer this process to be more precise.
In terms of your project: trying to pair up entrepreneurial minded people. I would start with a specific geographic location, Say... the Bay area. Right there the parameters are defined to specific coordinates (numeric). I would rate everyone on a proximity rating with each other first (which i am assuming that you are trying to do with the 1 city limitation) people that are with in 10 mile of each other receive a rating of (10), 15 miles (9)... 50+ miles (1) ect. The logic that drives this the proximity principle: objects that are close together will be seen as belonging together, so people that live in close proximity to each other will perceive the other to belong. Next I would create an in-depth survey to try to generate as much relevant information such as skill sets, interests, beliefs, values, age, what they are looking for in a "match" and also they type of company that they are trying to build. If it is extremely technical then there should be 2 very technical co-founders, if less technical then I would say 1 technical & 1 semi-technical co-founders. Depending upon what needs the project has. I would then match people who have "complimentary" scores. I would then generate scores using my coded survey and match the people together.
In terms of your project, I think it would be a good idea to go through different online survey tests (match, zoosk, eharmony) to see how the questions are set up and then coded.
(Here is a link to good coding practices. I think it will be able to help you further understand how you generate a numerical score off a survey) http://books.google.com/books?id=dB0fw5lf0GQC&pg=PA345&#...
The easiest way to emulate is this process is through a numerical scale. Take into account social indicators such as personality type (A,B), age, affluence, beliefs, values, perspectives, and most importantly what you are looking for in the other person. These scores are then "coded" by attributing a number to each answer which is then added or subtracted depending upon response. These values ultimately create a number and that number is "matched" with similar numbers (matrix matching) and you can layer this process to be more precise.
In terms of your project: trying to pair up entrepreneurial minded people. I would start with a specific geographic location, Say... the Bay area. Right there the parameters are defined to specific coordinates (numeric). I would rate everyone on a proximity rating with each other first (which i am assuming that you are trying to do with the 1 city limitation) people that are with in 10 mile of each other receive a rating of (10), 15 miles (9)... 50+ miles (1) ect. The logic that drives this the proximity principle: objects that are close together will be seen as belonging together, so people that live in close proximity to each other will perceive the other to belong. Next I would create an in-depth survey to try to generate as much relevant information such as skill sets, interests, beliefs, values, age, what they are looking for in a "match" and also they type of company that they are trying to build. If it is extremely technical then there should be 2 very technical co-founders, if less technical then I would say 1 technical & 1 semi-technical co-founders. Depending upon what needs the project has. I would then match people who have "complimentary" scores. I would then generate scores using my coded survey and match the people together.
In terms of your project, I think it would be a good idea to go through different online survey tests (match, zoosk, eharmony) to see how the questions are set up and then coded.
(Here is a link to good coding practices. I think it will be able to help you further understand how you generate a numerical score off a survey) http://books.google.com/books?id=dB0fw5lf0GQC&pg=PA345&#...
Thank you so much for this answer. The detail that some HNers put into comments really astounds me at times. I'll take all of this on board and see where it fits with my concept for ranking/coding. I'm sure GetFounder will benefit immensely from the content you linked. Cheers!
Just one city or one metro area? And if the latter, do you count Silicon Valley in the same area as San Francisco?
I use the term 'city' quite loosely (which I'm using to refer to a metro and it's surrounding communities), so yes, I would count Silicon Valley signups along with San Francisco signups.
I'm curious why you're limiting it to a single city. That seems kind of silly for a website.
I think the biggest misconception with the global reach of the web is that everything on there should be targeting the masses. Some sites, like GetFounder are focused on building business relationships between people who live near each other, as there's something about meeting people face to face that builds a more solid foundation for trust than emails/IMs.
By limiting the private beta to just one city, I'm able to gauge the effectiveness of GetFounder, without having to manage a wide-spread userbase that probably won't be able to see the true value/potential of the service. I personally feel that the reasoning behind this decision is anything but silly.
By limiting the private beta to just one city, I'm able to gauge the effectiveness of GetFounder, without having to manage a wide-spread userbase that probably won't be able to see the true value/potential of the service. I personally feel that the reasoning behind this decision is anything but silly.
Keep in mind I'm only working with that one splash page (which explains nothing as to what you're actually doing) and my imagination. I imagined a dating site for founders, which could be broken into networks by region or city that could be scaled relatively well by a small team.
On the other hand, I'd be excited for a "founder incubator" community site so to speak, a mix of online demos, profiles, etc but also real world events to pair people. In that case, I could see the focus. For general dating site, however, I don't see it. My immediate reaction though is, "So he plans on moving to the winning city?"
On the other hand, I'd be excited for a "founder incubator" community site so to speak, a mix of online demos, profiles, etc but also real world events to pair people. In that case, I could see the focus. For general dating site, however, I don't see it. My immediate reaction though is, "So he plans on moving to the winning city?"
We do plan to eventually launch everywhere, but that's something that has to scale based on what we learn from the beta. I don't plan to relocate in the near future, but there's always the possibility of having local representatives if we feel it's necessary.
The splash page intentionally keeps information about the app to a minimum. I'm trying to gauge how people respond based on the problems they face, and not on a list product features.
The splash page intentionally keeps information about the app to a minimum. I'm trying to gauge how people respond based on the problems they face, and not on a list product features.
Looks very slick. I signed up but doubt my city will be the debut one. Good luck anyway.
Clickable link:
http://getfounder.com
C'mon Fresno. ;) [fingers crossed]
As this is my first public release, I'm looking to the HN community to offer me feedback on what I should/shouldn't be displaying on the homepage. I'd be grateful for any advice you had to offer.
Thanks, and I hope to see some of you in the private beta!
Colin