> you can't really measure the value of an idea unless it's executed

Well, thankfully for US national security,
the US DoD has been doing just this with
batting average much higher than for VCs
for 70+ years. Examples include the
proximity fuse, sonar, radar, the atomic
bomb, the U-2, the SR-71, GPS, and more --
all of these were funded just from proposals
just on paper, without any 'execution',
and came out fine.

For projects by entrepreneurs, my guess
to do something similar is (1) pick a
big problem, one where clearly a new and
good or much better solution will be
warmly embraced by the market, (2) do
some research, original, powerful,
valuable, to get the desired solution
and a high barrier to entry. (3)
Do (1) and (2) so that the solution
can be delivered by software in a Web
server costing $2000-. Then go live,
get the revenue, grow the server
capacity, etc. It's what I'm trying
to do. Current obstacle: Windows
and trying to use XCACLS and CACLS to
delete a file system directory that
doesn't want to be deleted. Previous
obstacle: Poor Microsoft documentation
for the differences between GUIDs and
SqlGuids and how to convert between
them. Previous obstacle: A virus
from the security problems with Flash
and the fact that Windows doesn't
know how to run malware safely.
Previous obstacle: The fact that
Microsoft's ASP.NET is much easier
to work with when inserting Namespaces,
DLLs, and source code than Visual Basic
.NET. Previous obstacles: A long list
more from Microsoft. The work uniquely
mine has all been fast, fun, easy, without
delays. But I'm getting past the Microsoft
nonsense.

Problem sponsors at DoD, DARPA, and NSF
are used to being able to evaluate projects
just on paper with high batting average.
Apparently VCs don't want to do any such
things.

> 80%

All the percentages on what arrives in
a VC's in-box don't mean much because
what a VC has to find are exceptional
projects; that is, what the average
project is, or what most of the
projects are, is not very relevant --
again because what's required are
exceptional projects. How exceptional?
There has been a claim by
A16H that there are only about 15
projects a year worth a Series A.
If VCs would learn to read as well
as, say, NSF problem sponsors, then there might be a few
more, not a lot yet, but a few.

A problem of information technology
entrepreneur project 'ideas' is that
they are usually just a short description
of what the product/service does,
a description like might be given to
a prospective customer/user. So, with
such an 'idea' and description, usually
there is no good way to evaluate it.
E.g., how the heck, early on, to evaluate
Twitter? Twitter fails my (1) about
solving a big problem. Since it was
not clear that Twitter would solve
a big problem, it was difficult to
evaluate.

What is wanted for (1), for
an extreme example,
is, say, a safe, effective, cheap
one pill cure for any cancer -- there
we don't have to wait for 'traction'.

As in my (1), a 'good' information
technology project should have
significant value as easy to
see. And as for such a pill, want
to stand on some research for
an especially powerful, valuable
solution with barrier to entry.
The VCs just are not thinking this
way.

It is quite possible for a person
to be bright without education.
If the field they are working in,
e.g., computing, doesn't really
require a lot of formal education,
then a person can be bright and
good in that field without formal
education. But, doing really well
in a Ph.D. program in a top research
university tends to confirm
that someone is 'bright'!