Of course, ultimately it is TC's choice whom they cover. But I totally fail to see why just because it is a YC company, it is news-worthy. And as I said in another comment, I am not concerned that they covered Optimizely. All I mind (that too a little bit) is that they passed on us.
When TC, Mashable or RWW didn't reply I realized A/B testing may not be as sexy as location-based-gaming or a cool new iPhone app. But then covering an A/B testing startup on basis of YC while passing on another A/B testing startup (because it is not YC) is what I call "unfair". Right, I know it is not an ideal world, but someone has to keep reminding what a fair world could be :)
PS: Almost all your examples of news-maker point to the VC/Angel/Web clique and perhaps you are right that blogs that serve that clique may not be interested in a (bootstrapped) startup that doesn't fit the "culture".
I don't understand why "fair" is part of the conversation... Are you suggesting that they should make coverage a pure product meritocracy rather than based on the metrics that drive their business? Certainly product quality impacts the decision, but it's not unfair for them to run their business like a business.
For whatever reason, Y Combinator has engaged enough people to have a kind of 'following' that seems to be like other start-up investment groups. It may be due to PG's writing or it may be because we're all part of the community here, but people here WANT to see Y Combinator start-ups do well.
So it makes sense then that TechCrunch would cover every single YC launch, because this site is going to drive a boat load of traffic their way.
If it makes you feel better, people who read hacker news shouldn't be your target group anyways. The 'winner' in this market will be the people who engages webmasters who are inexperienced and wouldn't have heard of A/B testing before landing on your page.
> people here WANT to see Y Combinator start-ups do well.
Sure, but being here and not being Y combinator funded should not translate in to a disadvantage either. After all, bootstrapping is a lot harder than getting VC money and some names behind you for equity, once your idea is out in the open the least you could ask for is a level playing field in terms of coverage. It's not like a posting about other start-ups would cost TC traffic.
In this case it almost seems like they delayed mentioning paraschopras offering until the YC combinator venture went live.
When TC, Mashable or RWW didn't reply I realized A/B testing may not be as sexy as location-based-gaming or a cool new iPhone app. But then covering an A/B testing startup on basis of YC while passing on another A/B testing startup (because it is not YC) is what I call "unfair". Right, I know it is not an ideal world, but someone has to keep reminding what a fair world could be :)
PS: Almost all your examples of news-maker point to the VC/Angel/Web clique and perhaps you are right that blogs that serve that clique may not be interested in a (bootstrapped) startup that doesn't fit the "culture".