Why do you think they knew that much better what the event was about? These things are usually what you make of them. Who are they to tell you why you're there? Isn't that more your decision?
It's my decision based on the information I am given. Very little was given, but given that it was a YC event on the east coast, I was happy to travel from DC to attend without any other knowledge. That doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement. It also could change the nature of the event and those who attend.
The fact that you say 'these things are usually what you make of them' leads me to think there is tons of room for improvement with the way these events are run. I've been to quite a few tech meetups and some are definitely more well run than others and are easier to access (people wise). A lot of that has to do with how the organizers set up the event and the information they pass along.
I think the feedback is helpful and there are always improvements that could be made. I think what really annoyed me was the underlying assumption was an entitlement to some sort of definition of an event that was perhaps too new to be fully defined. Good people jump in and help define the event.
I would not be critiquing a blog post full of specific, useful advice on how the event could have been made better. There is advice like that in this entry, but you have to reach through piles of raw "someone should have told me more about something" thoughts before you can get there. I would have been much more interested in a blog post that read something along the lines of: "I attended this event and I thought it was a bit unfocused. Here's what I would have wanted this to be and here's what I think it should look like."
I hope YC listens to the feedback anyway. It's valuable, but count me personally disappointed.
Which is a quality that's important in founders. You should be bringing your own leadership to the room, not expecting a potential investor to lead you.
