4 ms·

Fwiw, Triplebyte has a fast track program which allows candidates to do a 2 hour proctored pairing session. Companies can use that as a way to filter and take

Fwiw, Triplebyte has a fast track program which allows candidates to do a 2 hour proctored pairing session. Companies can use that as a way to filter and take over at least part of their hiring process - it’s a one and done thing for a candidate dealing with any companies through the platform. We’re currently experimenting with it. It would be nice to have something like this completely divorced from a recruiting engine though.

xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
I was very excited about Triplebyte when I first saw it. I did very well on the test (>80th percentile straight out of school, as high as their scale goes) and was looking for junior positions. I didn't get a single interview and didn't get any feedback from a human after the exam was over. Perhaps other parts of my profile were unappealing, perhaps I applied to the wrong positions, or perhaps Triplebyte doesn't have many contacts outside of California. Whatever the reason, I was not impressed with the results. Their entire business is designed for people like me and it achieved nothing. Do with my anecdote what you will.
collyw 6y ago
Screw companies trying to make money by using developer time for free.
- brandall10 6y ago
  I’m genuinely confused by this comment and any downvotes. No candidate is doing unpaid work for us or for this service (ie. building out their platform). It's a way to validate a skillset, pure and simple, and that's how this platform makes its money. The output from a candidate has no business value aside from this. I can understand distaste about having a time imbalance (ie. a candidate is not investing the same # of ours as our staff), but like I said, this is a one and done thing and can be used w/ a way to cut down time working with any other companies using the platform. For us it means going directly to the final rounds, whether they took it at our suggestion, for another company, or just did it for themselves. If they do it for us and they don't end up with an offer, they are not left empty-handed from the process. In sum, it moves toward some sort of accreditation system, that’s the reason I mentioned it. It's a shame my comment is at the bottom of the pile as I too would love a future where the only time spent interviewing is just a couple hours getting to know my future teammates, and I truly feel platforms like this may eventually get us there. All the same I'd appreciate feedback on why they're disliked. I've seen them mentioned in other HN threads without any vitriol.
  - collyw 6y ago
    Ok, so why not pay devs for their time? Because you prefer to use that time as profit, no? The system encourages the default distrust of developers resumes. That most of them out there are lying, and we need a test to be sure that they can actually code. How many people have actually hired the mythical devloper that can talk well in an interview and not code?
    - brandall10 6y ago
      ONE MORE TIME - NO ONE IS PROFITING FROM INTERVIEW OUTPUT - THIS IS TO ASSESS ABILITY AND ONLY THAT. Forward, backward, sideways, up and down. If you're doing work that benefits the company that is another matter, but that's not what's happening here (or anywhere I've ever worked) and is ethically dubious regardless. That's not the point of an interview. I can't believe I'm having to explain this. You don't pay a dev for their time during the interview process for the same reason no one pays anyone for their time to interview in any industry. To hire straight off a resume is beyond wild. I'm in the process of hiring a dozen developers for my team, and have had 3 people who had great resumes fail a basic pairing session - they couldn't code. In the 24 years I've been in this industry, probably had at least a few dozen encounters like this. Sure, 90% of the time this isn't true, but it's true enough that it's insane to do it. "How many people have actually hired the mythical devloper that can talk well in an interview and not code?" I actually have. Twice. Earlier in my career when I believed these sorts of things. And was on hook for cleaning up the mess. Never again. The harm to the team's morale is not worth it.

xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago

I was very excited about Triplebyte when I first saw it. I did very well on the test (>80th percentile straight out of school, as high as their scale goes) and was looking for junior positions. I didn't get a single interview and didn't get any feedback from a human after the exam was over. Perhaps other parts of my profile were unappealing, perhaps I applied to the wrong positions, or perhaps Triplebyte doesn't have many contacts outside of California. Whatever the reason, I was not impressed with the results. Their entire business is designed for people like me and it achieved nothing. Do with my anecdote what you will.

collyw 6y ago

Screw companies trying to make money by using developer time for free.

brandall10 6y ago
I’m genuinely confused by this comment and any downvotes. No candidate is doing unpaid work for us or for this service (ie. building out their platform). It's a way to validate a skillset, pure and simple, and that's how this platform makes its money. The output from a candidate has no business value aside from this. I can understand distaste about having a time imbalance (ie. a candidate is not investing the same # of ours as our staff), but like I said, this is a one and done thing and can be used w/ a way to cut down time working with any other companies using the platform. For us it means going directly to the final rounds, whether they took it at our suggestion, for another company, or just did it for themselves. If they do it for us and they don't end up with an offer, they are not left empty-handed from the process. In sum, it moves toward some sort of accreditation system, that’s the reason I mentioned it. It's a shame my comment is at the bottom of the pile as I too would love a future where the only time spent interviewing is just a couple hours getting to know my future teammates, and I truly feel platforms like this may eventually get us there. All the same I'd appreciate feedback on why they're disliked. I've seen them mentioned in other HN threads without any vitriol.
- collyw 6y ago
  Ok, so why not pay devs for their time? Because you prefer to use that time as profit, no? The system encourages the default distrust of developers resumes. That most of them out there are lying, and we need a test to be sure that they can actually code. How many people have actually hired the mythical devloper that can talk well in an interview and not code?
  - brandall10 6y ago
    ONE MORE TIME - NO ONE IS PROFITING FROM INTERVIEW OUTPUT - THIS IS TO ASSESS ABILITY AND ONLY THAT. Forward, backward, sideways, up and down. If you're doing work that benefits the company that is another matter, but that's not what's happening here (or anywhere I've ever worked) and is ethically dubious regardless. That's not the point of an interview. I can't believe I'm having to explain this. You don't pay a dev for their time during the interview process for the same reason no one pays anyone for their time to interview in any industry. To hire straight off a resume is beyond wild. I'm in the process of hiring a dozen developers for my team, and have had 3 people who had great resumes fail a basic pairing session - they couldn't code. In the 24 years I've been in this industry, probably had at least a few dozen encounters like this. Sure, 90% of the time this isn't true, but it's true enough that it's insane to do it. "How many people have actually hired the mythical devloper that can talk well in an interview and not code?" I actually have. Twice. Earlier in my career when I believed these sorts of things. And was on hook for cleaning up the mess. Never again. The harm to the team's morale is not worth it.