7 ms·

I don't know either this is good for employers/customers but one thing for sure: this makes me feel even more terrified of failure, of becoming a "candidate" ag

I don't know either this is good for employers/customers but one thing for sure: this makes me feel even more terrified of failure, of becoming a "candidate" again. This company is making the world even more hostile for people who need jobs for reasons stated here by others. Let me explain: my wife is looking for a job now. She's not an engineer so the progress has been slow: hundreds of resumes emailed, no response, constant thoughts like "something's wrong with my resume??". Now you're telling me that she needs to sit down and film herself hundreds of times and then stare at the empty inbox and think "something's wrong with the way I look/talk?" That's just disgusting.

coryl 16y ago
Interesting way of looking at it. Although this problem is more of a self-concious/insecurity issue. Rejection is simply a numbers game; there's tons of applicants applying for single job openings. On the other hand, if your wife has a sparking personality and an average resume, video response might actually help her stand out of the crowd.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
shazow 16y ago
Not necessarily hundreds of times. My understanding of HireHive's model is that you could film yourself answering a set of questions once and include it in multiple similar job applications (at least some day). I look at video as a substitute for phone screenings rather than a substitute for a resume. I hate phone screenings.
- old-gregg 16y ago
  It is not: a phone screening involves a mutual time investment - there's a live person taking time to talk to you on the phone, so the "time complexity" for both parties is O(n). Posting a list of questions and requiring candidates to film themselves is free, so it is O(1) for the employer but still O(n) for a candidate. Don't be naive, if this service becomes popular, employers will recognize this advantage and exploit it in full.
  - rdl 16y ago
    I already try to get transcripts/notes from interrogations^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hinterviews for this very reason. 90% of the information in 1% of the time (for a live interview, with hassle) or 10% of the time (for watching a recorded video/audio). It's actually sort of good for marginal candidates, though -- if it costs me much less to interview 100 vs. 10 people, I might look over a lot of people who would get rejected at an even earlier stage otherwise.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Watching all the video responses is still O(n), even if it's asynchronous from when the questions are asked.
nicholasjbs 16y ago
Our goal is exactly the opposite: We want to make the hiring process more human. The current job market is definitely a slog for non-engineers (somehow the market for engineers has remained strong). We'd like HireHive to be a way for people like your wife to be able to stand out from the crowd. I'm in contact with a good number of companies that are hiring. I'd be happy to pass her info along if there's a good fit. Email me at nick [at] hirehive.com. I appreciate your blunt feedback.
- edanm 16y ago
  But will this really help the good people stand out more? Or will there just be techniques for looking good in an interview video, like there are many techniques for looking "good on paper"?
pg 16y ago
In-person interviews have an even worse problem: if your wife is rejected after one of those, she has to worry not merely that she looks lame in a video, but seems lame in person. But you don't find the concept of interviews disgusting, presumably because it is already a familiar one. Which suggests that your real problem with this technology is its novelty.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Personally, I just don't like the way I look on videos. I think it is harder to make a good impression on video. I acknowledge that I might look as weird in RL as on video, but in RL I can decide not to think about it. Anyway, I can imagine this video thing taking off, unless there are legal problems. Don't know why, but I think in the uk you are not supposed to include photograps with applications. Perhaps to prevent racism?
  - notahacker 16y ago
    Photos are probably frowned on to discourage racism, ageism and the good old fashioned "we'll only invite the pretty ones in for interview". It's also common practice to remove date of birth from CVs. It's more a case of being considered inappropriate than legal barriers...a friend of mine recruiting abroad found the idea of attached photos nearly as amusing as the adjacent salary demands. I think that the video thing will suffer more from being considered a bit odd or time consuming compared with skimming through text, especially for large non-creative employers looking to fill a quota. On the other hand, webcam interviews could start to replace the first-stage phone interview.
- old-gregg 16y ago
  But you don't find the concept of interviews disgusting, presumably because it is already a familiar one. Which suggests that your real problem with this technology is its novelty. No, I'm not one of "those people" :-) My initial reaction was negative because filming yourself a hundred times is a torture. I failed to see what's in it for folks who are looking for jobs and are pretty miserable already. Your argument is also flawed because you are comparing video clips to interviews like they're going to replace them which they won't. One can make an argument that this approach will eliminate the need to apply to hundreds of jobs. That would be great, but how? The ratio of resumes/replies is determined not by technology but by applicants/position ratio. I've exchanged a few emails with Nicolas and he feels confident that the product will make life easier for candidates as well, I really want him to be right/succeed. At least YC companies are using it right: they actually save time for an applicant.

coryl 16y ago

Interesting way of looking at it. Although this problem is more of a self-concious/insecurity issue. Rejection is simply a numbers game; there's tons of applicants applying for single job openings. On the other hand, if your wife has a sparking personality and an average resume, video response might actually help her stand out of the crowd.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

shazow 16y ago

Not necessarily hundreds of times. My understanding of HireHive's model is that you could film yourself answering a set of questions once and include it in multiple similar job applications (at least some day). I look at video as a substitute for phone screenings rather than a substitute for a resume. I hate phone screenings.

old-gregg 16y ago
It is not: a phone screening involves a mutual time investment - there's a live person taking time to talk to you on the phone, so the "time complexity" for both parties is O(n). Posting a list of questions and requiring candidates to film themselves is free, so it is O(1) for the employer but still O(n) for a candidate. Don't be naive, if this service becomes popular, employers will recognize this advantage and exploit it in full.
- rdl 16y ago
  I already try to get transcripts/notes from interrogations^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hinterviews for this very reason. 90% of the information in 1% of the time (for a live interview, with hassle) or 10% of the time (for watching a recorded video/audio). It's actually sort of good for marginal candidates, though -- if it costs me much less to interview 100 vs. 10 people, I might look over a lot of people who would get rejected at an even earlier stage otherwise.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Watching all the video responses is still O(n), even if it's asynchronous from when the questions are asked.

nicholasjbs 16y ago

Our goal is exactly the opposite: We want to make the hiring process more human. The current job market is definitely a slog for non-engineers (somehow the market for engineers has remained strong). We'd like HireHive to be a way for people like your wife to be able to stand out from the crowd. I'm in contact with a good number of companies that are hiring. I'd be happy to pass her info along if there's a good fit. Email me at nick [at] hirehive.com. I appreciate your blunt feedback.

edanm 16y ago
But will this really help the good people stand out more? Or will there just be techniques for looking good in an interview video, like there are many techniques for looking "good on paper"?

pg 16y ago

In-person interviews have an even worse problem: if your wife is rejected after one of those, she has to worry not merely that she looks lame in a video, but seems lame in person. But you don't find the concept of interviews disgusting, presumably because it is already a familiar one. Which suggests that your real problem with this technology is its novelty.

Tichy 16y ago
Personally, I just don't like the way I look on videos. I think it is harder to make a good impression on video. I acknowledge that I might look as weird in RL as on video, but in RL I can decide not to think about it. Anyway, I can imagine this video thing taking off, unless there are legal problems. Don't know why, but I think in the uk you are not supposed to include photograps with applications. Perhaps to prevent racism?
- notahacker 16y ago
  Photos are probably frowned on to discourage racism, ageism and the good old fashioned "we'll only invite the pretty ones in for interview". It's also common practice to remove date of birth from CVs. It's more a case of being considered inappropriate than legal barriers...a friend of mine recruiting abroad found the idea of attached photos nearly as amusing as the adjacent salary demands. I think that the video thing will suffer more from being considered a bit odd or time consuming compared with skimming through text, especially for large non-creative employers looking to fill a quota. On the other hand, webcam interviews could start to replace the first-stage phone interview.
old-gregg 16y ago
But you don't find the concept of interviews disgusting, presumably because it is already a familiar one. Which suggests that your real problem with this technology is its novelty. No, I'm not one of "those people" :-) My initial reaction was negative because filming yourself a hundred times is a torture. I failed to see what's in it for folks who are looking for jobs and are pretty miserable already. Your argument is also flawed because you are comparing video clips to interviews like they're going to replace them which they won't. One can make an argument that this approach will eliminate the need to apply to hundreds of jobs. That would be great, but how? The ratio of resumes/replies is determined not by technology but by applicants/position ratio. I've exchanged a few emails with Nicolas and he feels confident that the product will make life easier for candidates as well, I really want him to be right/succeed. At least YC companies are using it right: they actually save time for an applicant.