I don't know why YC needed an interview to tell Sniply that "we can’t see it becoming the huge type of company that investors like to fund." Surely that should have been weeded out in the initial selection. Their story highlights a lack of transparency in the YC selection process. Those who are rejected at the application stage get no reasons at all. Then they hear stories like this and wonder if there is any method to the selection process at all.
If YC has internal tools to assess all the applications (as they claim) then what is the harm in publishing those criteria, and publishing the results publicly. For example, let's say Sniply got 5/10 for market size, but had 10/10 for member ability (and that ability was weighted evenly) then we could see how it was selected, and we could see why it was selected over other applicants. Then all applicants could see where they stand. As it stands it seems to be a real crapshoot, which gives false hope to companies like Sniply, while denying others the chance to be selected.
If YC has internal tools to assess all the applications (as they claim) then what is the harm in publishing those criteria, and publishing the results publicly. For example, let's say Sniply got 5/10 for market size, but had 10/10 for member ability (and that ability was weighted evenly) then we could see how it was selected, and we could see why it was selected over other applicants. Then all applicants could see where they stand. As it stands it seems to be a real crapshoot, which gives false hope to companies like Sniply, while denying others the chance to be selected.