It seems like there are 2 very simple metrics that make everything else pretty irrelevant. For applicants - how many who "pass" get jobs? For employers - how

It seems like there are 2 very simple metrics that make everything else pretty irrelevant. For applicants - how many who "pass" get jobs? For employers - how many positions did you fill? I found it odd that the blog post intentionally left that out. Getting someone an interview is not a good metric! And as someone who has spent a fair bit of time on both sides (it sounds like the founders have minimal experience actually applying for jobs) it is a huge mistake to interview serially. Companies take their sweet time getting back to you (weeks is not uncommon), and their initial offer is not as good as it could be. When they know that they are competing for a candidate, they are very quick to move on a candidate. This helps the whole "follow up" problem solve itself. While it might seem like it requires more mental bandwidth, it probably requires less. And customer satisfaction goes way up. For someone job hunting, every passing hour waiting for an outcome can be brutal. Also, I am simultaneously impressed and confused by the technical investment. It's fantastic work, but doesn't seem like it is helping to increment #1 or #2.