3 ms·

There have been a few YC companies to reinvent / optimize / improve the tech hiring process, such as Triplebyte. In theory, they could be a better approach. I

There have been a few YC companies to reinvent / optimize / improve the tech hiring process, such as Triplebyte. In theory, they could be a better approach. In practice, my experience has been that many companies don't actively monitor and interests go unseen or trivially dismissed. I had companies like Dropbox mark my interest on Triplebyte as "no relevant experience" after viewing my profile for less than a minute and for which I've actually been doing and have 5+ years of relevant experience.

eclipticplane 4y ago
I view the Triplebytes of the world as negative signal on companies. They aren't willing to spend time coding with candidates? The core thing I'm being hired to do? If they don't have the time due to number of candidates (common reason), _they have a screening/sourcing problem_ not a _technical exercise problem_. For me, watching how someone solves a problem is just as important as the actual solution if I'm going to be working with them on a daily basis.
- tedmiston 4y ago
  A lot of Triplebyte's value as a candidate is in being able to skip past screener type calls / the very earliest stages. I don't think it is at the point where they entirely replace technical interviews.
- andrew_ 4y ago
  > watching how someone solves a problem is just as important as the actual solution I've seen this misnomer hundreds of times over the course of a 20 year career. It's a comfort-falacy. If someone interviews well they're going to give you a false sense of comfort and security in their ability. Interviewing well doesn't translate directly to working well. Interview processes in tech are overly hostile to the candidate - and I mean hostile in the sense that they apply unneeded pressure in condensed periods of time that don't reflect the majority of the work environment. Yes, we want people who can perform in crunch time, but that should not represent the bulk of work and if it does, there's another problem (I digress). Another point that people seem all too eager to ignore is that how someone problem solves now is not as important as their potential or ability to improve and learn. A candidate that is excellent in interviews may not have the capacity for learning beyond what they're being run through in the interview. I've personally seen this happen at least a dozen times. If one thinks a 30 minute coding exercise if giving them a good sense of a candidate's ability in both writing code and problem solving, they're part of the problem with hiring in tech.

eclipticplane 4y ago

I view the Triplebytes of the world as negative signal on companies. They aren't willing to spend time coding with candidates? The core thing I'm being hired to do? If they don't have the time due to number of candidates (common reason), _they have a screening/sourcing problem_ not a _technical exercise problem_. For me, watching how someone solves a problem is just as important as the actual solution if I'm going to be working with them on a daily basis.

tedmiston 4y ago
A lot of Triplebyte's value as a candidate is in being able to skip past screener type calls / the very earliest stages. I don't think it is at the point where they entirely replace technical interviews.
andrew_ 4y ago
> watching how someone solves a problem is just as important as the actual solution I've seen this misnomer hundreds of times over the course of a 20 year career. It's a comfort-falacy. If someone interviews well they're going to give you a false sense of comfort and security in their ability. Interviewing well doesn't translate directly to working well. Interview processes in tech are overly hostile to the candidate - and I mean hostile in the sense that they apply unneeded pressure in condensed periods of time that don't reflect the majority of the work environment. Yes, we want people who can perform in crunch time, but that should not represent the bulk of work and if it does, there's another problem (I digress). Another point that people seem all too eager to ignore is that how someone problem solves now is not as important as their potential or ability to improve and learn. A candidate that is excellent in interviews may not have the capacity for learning beyond what they're being run through in the interview. I've personally seen this happen at least a dozen times. If one thinks a 30 minute coding exercise if giving them a good sense of a candidate's ability in both writing code and problem solving, they're part of the problem with hiring in tech.