3 ms·

Reading between the lines a bit on the existing postings about it, I'm guessing that they were unable to persuade any businesses to actually relax their intervi

by ufmace 3y ago

Reading between the lines a bit on the existing postings about it, I'm guessing that they were unable to persuade any businesses to actually relax their interviewing standards for candidates who passed the Starfighter tests. Which then puts any candidates in the position of, why should I spend time and effort on this little game if it doesn't lead to any advantage at all in actually getting good positions? And so, the only people who messed with it were developers who had the free time to play with stuff like this and didn't particularly care that it wouldn't lead to any advantage in getting jobs. Which means, it's a cool toy that was high-effort to build and probably to maintain, but had no viable path to earn money from anybody.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> I'm guessing that they were unable to persuade any businesses to actually relax their interviewing standards for candidates who passed the Starfighter tests. > Which then puts any candidates in the position of, why should I spend time and effort on this little game if it doesn't lead to any advantage at all in actually getting good positions? This is the same position TripleByte was in. They advertised themselves to developers as "show us you can code", but they advertised themselves to companies as "we will find candidates who pass your existing hiring process". And when pressed on which of those things they were actually trying to do, they admitted it was the second one.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- aleph_minus_one 3y ago
  > but they advertised themselves to companies as "we will find candidates who pass your existing hiring process" If TripleByte really succeeded with this, the customer companys could save quite some money by simplifying their hiring processes. The problem in my opinion rather is that most company's hiring processes have an official and a hidden agenda, and TripleByte only attempted to find candidates that might succeed in the official agenda.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > If TripleByte really succeeded with this, the customer companys could save quite some money by simplifying their hiring processes. No, that's what happens if TripleByte succeeds at their fake goal of finding candidates who are good candidates. That's the goal they claimed to have without actually having. If all TripleByte does is find candidates who pass your process, you can't simplify your hiring process without affecting the quality of the candidates you hire through references from TripleByte.
    - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
      > If all TripleByte does is find candidates who pass your process, you can't simplify your hiring process without affecting the quality of the candidates you hire through references from TripleByte. If TripleByte is capable of finding candidates who would pass a specific, described process, you theoretically can omit the whole process because by definition, you know that the candidate is able to pass it. In practise, for good reasons, you don't want to do this, but it already save quite some money to shorten the process or just do plausibility checks. If these plausibility checks make you realize that TripleByte was overselling (or to put it much more directly: are fraudsters), this should hopefully cause sufficient reputation damage for TripleByte that they go bust; thus TripleByte hopefully has a strong incentive not to oversell.
      - thaumasiotes 3y ago
        > If TripleByte is capable of finding candidates who would pass a specific, described process If you (as a hiring company) can describe your hiring process accurately enough that it's possible to specify it, you don't need recruiting at all. You can just take applications directly. What you're imagining is not related to the problems TripleByte faced. If your goal is, as TripleByte's was, to find people who can pass a particular company's hiring process, the only way for you to know what that process is like is by experimenting with it empirically. > you theoretically can omit the whole process because by definition, you know that the candidate is able to pass it. Once again, you (aleph_minus_one) are describing the goal of "find candidates who are good at the job", not the goal of "find candidates who will pass the hiring process". > If these plausibility checks make you realize that TripleByte was overselling (or to put it much more directly: are fraudsters) No, that's just what it looks like to you (the company trying to fill spots). The problem people are attempting to address is that the company's hiring process is unrelated to what the company wants in a candidate. You are the fraudster; TripleByte in this scenario is the scapegoat for the bad job you do at candidate evaluation.

by ufmace 3y ago

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> I'm guessing that they were unable to persuade any businesses to actually relax their interviewing standards for candidates who passed the Starfighter tests. > Which then puts any candidates in the position of, why should I spend time and effort on this little game if it doesn't lead to any advantage at all in actually getting good positions? This is the same position TripleByte was in. They advertised themselves to developers as "show us you can code", but they advertised themselves to companies as "we will find candidates who pass your existing hiring process". And when pressed on which of those things they were actually trying to do, they admitted it was the second one.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> but they advertised themselves to companies as "we will find candidates who pass your existing hiring process" If TripleByte really succeeded with this, the customer companys could save quite some money by simplifying their hiring processes. The problem in my opinion rather is that most company's hiring processes have an official and a hidden agenda, and TripleByte only attempted to find candidates that might succeed in the official agenda.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > If TripleByte really succeeded with this, the customer companys could save quite some money by simplifying their hiring processes. No, that's what happens if TripleByte succeeds at their fake goal of finding candidates who are good candidates. That's the goal they claimed to have without actually having. If all TripleByte does is find candidates who pass your process, you can't simplify your hiring process without affecting the quality of the candidates you hire through references from TripleByte.
  - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
    > If all TripleByte does is find candidates who pass your process, you can't simplify your hiring process without affecting the quality of the candidates you hire through references from TripleByte. If TripleByte is capable of finding candidates who would pass a specific, described process, you theoretically can omit the whole process because by definition, you know that the candidate is able to pass it. In practise, for good reasons, you don't want to do this, but it already save quite some money to shorten the process or just do plausibility checks. If these plausibility checks make you realize that TripleByte was overselling (or to put it much more directly: are fraudsters), this should hopefully cause sufficient reputation damage for TripleByte that they go bust; thus TripleByte hopefully has a strong incentive not to oversell.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      > If TripleByte is capable of finding candidates who would pass a specific, described process If you (as a hiring company) can describe your hiring process accurately enough that it's possible to specify it, you don't need recruiting at all. You can just take applications directly. What you're imagining is not related to the problems TripleByte faced. If your goal is, as TripleByte's was, to find people who can pass a particular company's hiring process, the only way for you to know what that process is like is by experimenting with it empirically. > you theoretically can omit the whole process because by definition, you know that the candidate is able to pass it. Once again, you (aleph_minus_one) are describing the goal of "find candidates who are good at the job", not the goal of "find candidates who will pass the hiring process". > If these plausibility checks make you realize that TripleByte was overselling (or to put it much more directly: are fraudsters) No, that's just what it looks like to you (the company trying to fill spots). The problem people are attempting to address is that the company's hiring process is unrelated to what the company wants in a candidate. You are the fraudster; TripleByte in this scenario is the scapegoat for the bad job you do at candidate evaluation.