Good question. We thought about what we should do after YC.
Post rejection, we waited a few weeks until we had some pretty good traction stats, and then sent an email to PG asking they reconsider us. We got an email back saying they don't change their decisions because they wouldn't be able to scale that way.
In this case, we didn't think the best thing was to do flashy techniques, based on what we've heard about PG. Depending on where our startup is, we may apply again next batch. We're applying to other incubators right now too.
There's a subtlety -- in "100 hours does't always work" you describe how simply putting the time in isn't sufficient to get the outcome. You still tried, and you (unfortunately) failed. In the case of YC, it seems that you chose not to try (though you likely already spent 100 hours for the original interview process, right?).
I think you may want to write a blog post about that: How do you choose which project to invest 100 units into? And, how do you measure the success of that decision both in the short- and long-terms?
For example, do you think the Evernote application had long-run benefits? Did it help you in getting a different job down the road? Those are the kind of stories I think would be interesting to connect to the give it 100 project.
Could you elaborate on your comment? EG: Dissect what she's said here to come to the conclusion you replied with?
Her article starts about how she used her technique to get into the college she wanted to after she got rejected. To me that sounds like a perfect example of how her technique worked for her.
