Ratings in the service of the web
Colleagues, I decided to share news about Moscow meetings, and also ask for advice.
So, October 5th, Sunday. The 3rd meeting of startups will take place. The second meeting came in two more people than the first and the growth trend promises to continue. There are also more and more start-up managers wishing to present their projects, and the time, as we know, is not rubber. From the beginning, it was decided to make a brief, filling in which the start-up sends it to the organizers. Those, in turn, choose the best-prepared of the applicants and invite them to make presentations at the meeting, receiving the necessary criticism, ideas and investor attention.
You can guess what happened next. Of course there were those who did not agree with the decision not to skip someone's startup to the discussion.
What to do in this case?
Aib (meeting participant) suggested the following cool idea. Because The event consists of 2 parts - ElevatorPitch (talk about a startup in 1 minute) and StartupLynch (a startup startup answers questions from the audience, hears criticism or praise), invite everyone to participate in ElevatorPitch, and those who listen to at Lynch will be identified by an anonymous vote on pieces of paper.
Those. for example, 10 startups participate in the first part, the audience votes and only the five who get the most votes go into the “second round”.
My personal opinion that such ratings will not only filter the public for the most interesting, but also serve as an incentive for the speakers themselves, will add excitement to the event. Let's draw an analogy with Habr, where only the topics approved by the habrasoobschestvom get into the main. And Habr is not the only example. Ratings are the strongest tool for working with the audience, its emotional involvement in the process.
It is very interesting to know your opinion on this matter. Is it worth it or not to rate those who want to speak? How can the process be improved?
For those who are going to attend the Sunday event, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with startups that will be presented tomorrow (and have a website). That questions were prepared in advance.
* http://www.devprom.net
* http://studentbox.ru
* + 4 startups with sites not yet running
(We continue to accept applications for performances from startups.)
By the way, the meeting promised to be an “expert-incognito”, as I call a well-known Internet figure who wished not to advertise his name before the event. Knowing who it is highly recommended to come to the meeting. ;)
If you want to come, please unsubscribe in the google group groups.google.com/group/startpointmsk
COMING IT POSSIBLE FOR ALL, WITHOUT A STARTUP, YOU CAN, JUST BE HEARD ALSO.
(Your messages will be taken into account by the organizers, but they will not be missed to the list to all participants. You understand that you are not very happy when there are 40 letters in your inbox with a general meaning “I will. Count me.”)
So, October 5th, Sunday. The 3rd meeting of startups will take place. The second meeting came in two more people than the first and the growth trend promises to continue. There are also more and more start-up managers wishing to present their projects, and the time, as we know, is not rubber. From the beginning, it was decided to make a brief, filling in which the start-up sends it to the organizers. Those, in turn, choose the best-prepared of the applicants and invite them to make presentations at the meeting, receiving the necessary criticism, ideas and investor attention.
You can guess what happened next. Of course there were those who did not agree with the decision not to skip someone's startup to the discussion.
What to do in this case?
Aib (meeting participant) suggested the following cool idea. Because The event consists of 2 parts - ElevatorPitch (talk about a startup in 1 minute) and StartupLynch (a startup startup answers questions from the audience, hears criticism or praise), invite everyone to participate in ElevatorPitch, and those who listen to at Lynch will be identified by an anonymous vote on pieces of paper.
Those. for example, 10 startups participate in the first part, the audience votes and only the five who get the most votes go into the “second round”.
My personal opinion that such ratings will not only filter the public for the most interesting, but also serve as an incentive for the speakers themselves, will add excitement to the event. Let's draw an analogy with Habr, where only the topics approved by the habrasoobschestvom get into the main. And Habr is not the only example. Ratings are the strongest tool for working with the audience, its emotional involvement in the process.
It is very interesting to know your opinion on this matter. Is it worth it or not to rate those who want to speak? How can the process be improved?
For those who are going to attend the Sunday event, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with startups that will be presented tomorrow (and have a website). That questions were prepared in advance.
* http://www.devprom.net
* http://studentbox.ru
* + 4 startups with sites not yet running
(We continue to accept applications for performances from startups.)
By the way, the meeting promised to be an “expert-incognito”, as I call a well-known Internet figure who wished not to advertise his name before the event. Knowing who it is highly recommended to come to the meeting. ;)
If you want to come, please unsubscribe in the google group groups.google.com/group/startpointmsk
COMING IT POSSIBLE FOR ALL, WITHOUT A STARTUP, YOU CAN, JUST BE HEARD ALSO.
(Your messages will be taken into account by the organizers, but they will not be missed to the list to all participants. You understand that you are not very happy when there are 40 letters in your inbox with a general meaning “I will. Count me.”)
')
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/41626/
All Articles