3 ms·

This is a perfect example of why we're making these changes (and the problem that came from us being a gatekeeper). There are lots of different ways to show ski

by ammon 5y ago

This is a perfect example of why we're making these changes (and the problem that came from us being a gatekeeper). There are lots of different ways to show skill. We don't want to be in the position of deciding who "deserves" a job.

ALittleLight 5y ago
Isn't that what the core value of TripleByte was though? "This person deserves a job." Then some company says "Okay".
- ammon 5y ago
  I'd say that main value was that we opened doors for people (got them opportunities they would not have been considered for without us). I don't think what we need to be gatekeepers to do this. Yes, not everyone can succeed (get a job at at top company). But we can help everyone show their skills in the way that's best for them. We can fight ghosting and lying and create a less hostile process. We're keeping our quiz (so that people who do well on tests can get opportunities that way), and also creating a job search process for people who do not want to do a quiz (the majority of engineers). The idea is that they will show their skills other ways (past experience, side projects, open source work). By us not being a gatekeeper we open these other paths.
- rachofsunshine 5y ago
  In the case of people who needed us to vouch that they deserved a job, yeah. But: - In borderline cases, we didn't want to risk our credibility and companies didn't want to skip tech screens. So competent-but-not-amazing engineers got shut out. - Our quiz is not perfect, so engineers who didn't fit what we were quizzing got shut out. - Not everyone needs us to vouch for them. Companies (reasonably) trust that someone with a degree from a top school and years of prestigious experiences can probably do fizzbuzz, and demanding that they prove it was a barrier to them using Triplebyte. We think it's better to have more granular ability for companies and engineers to decide what mattes to them. A prestigious company can say "we'll only talk to people who took the quiz and got a top score" (and that score is us saying "this person deserves a job"). One that desperately needs the headcount can talk to the borderline cases or decide they don't want to put the extra barrier of a quiz in the way. Like most markets, we think the hiring market on our platform works best when it's able to respond to local conditions.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > (and that score is us saying "this person deserves a job") If you're not willing to refer people to companies based on their score, how can you interpret the score as you saying "this person deserves a job"?
    - rachofsunshine 5y ago
      The difference is in the bar for forcing companies to set aside parts of their screening process. To get them to do that - as we needed to under our old model, because we didn't have a notion of "recommended but without the requirement to skip tech screens" - we needed to be making very strong recommendations.
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
        I'm a little bemused at the notion of evaluating someone "strong tech skills, but can't pass an interview" and determining that the appropriate recommendation is "talk to this guy, but -- unlike with most of our candidates -- don't skip the tech screens". The recommendation seems like the opposite of the diagnosis. How does the new ability to make that recommendation address the original problem?
        ianwalter 5y ago
        Because getting some leads with less certainty is better than getting no leads with higher certainty in a tight market? Wasn't this addressed in the post?

by ammon 5y ago

ALittleLight 5y ago

Isn't that what the core value of TripleByte was though? "This person deserves a job." Then some company says "Okay".

ammon 5y ago
I'd say that main value was that we opened doors for people (got them opportunities they would not have been considered for without us). I don't think what we need to be gatekeepers to do this. Yes, not everyone can succeed (get a job at at top company). But we can help everyone show their skills in the way that's best for them. We can fight ghosting and lying and create a less hostile process. We're keeping our quiz (so that people who do well on tests can get opportunities that way), and also creating a job search process for people who do not want to do a quiz (the majority of engineers). The idea is that they will show their skills other ways (past experience, side projects, open source work). By us not being a gatekeeper we open these other paths.
rachofsunshine 5y ago
In the case of people who needed us to vouch that they deserved a job, yeah. But: - In borderline cases, we didn't want to risk our credibility and companies didn't want to skip tech screens. So competent-but-not-amazing engineers got shut out. - Our quiz is not perfect, so engineers who didn't fit what we were quizzing got shut out. - Not everyone needs us to vouch for them. Companies (reasonably) trust that someone with a degree from a top school and years of prestigious experiences can probably do fizzbuzz, and demanding that they prove it was a barrier to them using Triplebyte. We think it's better to have more granular ability for companies and engineers to decide what mattes to them. A prestigious company can say "we'll only talk to people who took the quiz and got a top score" (and that score is us saying "this person deserves a job"). One that desperately needs the headcount can talk to the borderline cases or decide they don't want to put the extra barrier of a quiz in the way. Like most markets, we think the hiring market on our platform works best when it's able to respond to local conditions.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > (and that score is us saying "this person deserves a job") If you're not willing to refer people to companies based on their score, how can you interpret the score as you saying "this person deserves a job"?
  - rachofsunshine 5y ago
    The difference is in the bar for forcing companies to set aside parts of their screening process. To get them to do that - as we needed to under our old model, because we didn't have a notion of "recommended but without the requirement to skip tech screens" - we needed to be making very strong recommendations.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      I'm a little bemused at the notion of evaluating someone "strong tech skills, but can't pass an interview" and determining that the appropriate recommendation is "talk to this guy, but -- unlike with most of our candidates -- don't skip the tech screens". The recommendation seems like the opposite of the diagnosis. How does the new ability to make that recommendation address the original problem?
      - ianwalter 5y ago
        Because getting some leads with less certainty is better than getting no leads with higher certainty in a tight market? Wasn't this addressed in the post?