The article is good but I don't think it delves into the "middle ground" which is so common for startups. A very small percentage of companies elicit huge interest (i.e., fast action, term sheet quickly, etc.) A surprisingly small set of companies that meet with VCs elicit signals that are clear nos (e.g., not responding to emails and so on). These are usually ones where the idea is so dumb or the pitch is so bad, the VC questions the entrepreneur's capabilities. I'd say the vast majority of meetings turn into this netherland where the VC isn't sold on the idea but also isn't sold on NOT funding the idea. S/he either doesn't know the space well enough, isn't sure his/her partners would agree, doesn't have enough clout in the firm yet (see previous point), doesn't know the entrepreneur well enough to feel conviction, etc. So s/he doesn't say yes. But s/he doesn't say no yet either because s/he wants the optionality in case (a) another VC firm who is well respected or know the space decides to go after it (which creates the super-annoying lemming effect), (b) another partner and his/her firm gets "conviction" on the company independently, (c) s/he hears other good things about the entrepreneur, etc. I think for most entrepreneurs, this is the most annoying category to be in.