Founder Institute, we often rate things on a scale of one to five; but without three's.t
It is too easy for everything to be given a three without giving it much thought when three's are permitted.
A five would be good enough for an investor to write a check.
A four would be good enough to get a meeting.
A two is not meeting ready but seems like it could be fixed
And, a one, well either it is incoherent and isn't likely to be salvageable, or I don't understand it well enough to judge it. One of those cases where I hope I will be to later say, “Your idea is much stronger than your presentation” instead of repeatedly asking, “What business are you in??”
Some days I think that those are the only two things that I say. Seriously.
But today, I will a different question:
What would a life without three's be like?
What if we drew a line and consciously asked whether something was really worth another hour of our life?
And what if as I write, we had a standard to not publish any ones or twos …
I think we all have the standard already.
But it is really tempting to publish threes. They seem sort of good enough. And when push comes to shove, a few of them may be four's, but the bulk of them are probably two's. )The ones and the obvious twos were already put aside.)