3 ms·

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 d

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?

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?