3 ms·

Interesting that this post gets right to the point with at least plausible, and more to the point: user-focused reasons as to why Triplebyte filed. While the b

Interesting that this post gets right to the point with at least plausible, and more to the point: user-focused reasons as to why Triplebyte filed. While the blogpost starts off with -- its "impressive founding pedigree." That's the first thing these people think of in their root cause analysis.

SmellTheGlove 2y ago
It’ll be interesting to see how much “founding pedigree” actually matters now that free money is gone. It’s not to say it was ever easy (and I’ve certainly never done it), but I’d bet even folks with past successful exits are going to have a hard time these days. Hell, the market has shifted so much that I wonder if having done it before matters a whole lot now, when you fundamentally today need a different attitude toward free cash flow early on versus 5 years ago.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  Being (or working with) the son or daughter of a celebrity or prominent rich person / business leader is more important than ever.
rachofsunshine 2y ago
I go into the background because I don't want to assume people are familiar with a specific company that hasn't even existed for a year-plus, and because I wanted to emphasize that these were the mistakes made by smart, serious people doing their best. If people who have done this before, people in whom very smart, very incentivized people are willing to place their trust, can make these mistakes, I sure as hell can, and so can you. I certainly do NOT intend to say "the founders had cool credentials and that's why they were right about everything". The previous poster to whom you're replying has legitimate criticisms, although I don't think they're correct that those were the reasons for Triplebyte's failure (since we did indeed acquire many candidates with considerable skills, and since the public-profiles incident was a consequence of pivoting, which we did because we couldn't solve bigger problems).
- racional 2y ago
  How is an obviously foolish and unethical decision to publicly post user profiles without their consent -- "a consequence of pivoting"?
  - rachofsunshine 2y ago
    To be clear: it was a bad decision both ethically and tactically, and I am not in any way defending it. I am explaining it, in the same way that one might explain why a bridge collapsed. (I will also note that one piece of the backlash somewhat misunderstood things - the profiles were "public" to subscribers, not to the internet at large, insofar as that distinction is meaningful.) The reason it was a consequence of pivoting is that that decision was made in the context of that pivot. Getting the hypothetical "linkedin for engineers" network up only made sense in the context of existing data, so there was a powerful incentive towards grey/dark-patterns in getting it up and running and, as relevant here, towards motivated reasoning about how it would be received. Or at least, I think it was probably motivated reasoning, because as far as I can tell the surprise at the backlash was sincere (I was not part of the leadership at the time, so this is a retroactive best guess on my part, but one I'm fairly confident in.) That incentive pressure only existed in the context of a company trying to figure out what to do next in somewhat desperate circumstances, and it's in that sense that it was a consequence.
    - renewiltord 2y ago
      Yeah, that didn't seem like a clever move by an ascending company so much as a desperate move by a descending company. Therefore it can't be the reason for the failure.
    - racional 2y ago
      A meaningful explanation of why a bridge collapsed would be: "Facing financial pressure, the board voted to re-open the bridge despite advice from its own experts that it was unsafe and faced a high chance of catastrophic failure." What I'm hearing instead -- is a categorical focus on "incentive pressures", rather than on the obvious lapse of sound judgement on the part of those responsible. As revealed, quite plainly, by their decision to not go with what should have been seen as the only reasonable course of action here -- to resist the temptation to resort to dark patterns, despite the incentive pressures to do so. You say you're "not defending it", but by attempting to but more focus on external factors ("incentive pressures") rather than on the poor judgement on the part of those responsible -- you're doing just that. You aren't denying that an error was made, but you are very clearly attempting to minimize the significance of it. The point of literally saying it was a "result of" external business conditions. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimisation_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimisation_(psychology)
PaulHoule 2y ago
I remember Triplebyte for saturation advertising and paying off bloggers to write spammy articles with titles like “hiring is broken”. Nothing destroys a brand more effectively than ineffective and annoying advertising. (I think of the otherwise great milvlogger who does his own product placements for his own caffeinated gum which I get disgusted just thinking about)

SmellTheGlove 2y ago

It’ll be interesting to see how much “founding pedigree” actually matters now that free money is gone. It’s not to say it was ever easy (and I’ve certainly never done it), but I’d bet even folks with past successful exits are going to have a hard time these days. Hell, the market has shifted so much that I wonder if having done it before matters a whole lot now, when you fundamentally today need a different attitude toward free cash flow early on versus 5 years ago.

doctorpangloss 2y ago
Being (or working with) the son or daughter of a celebrity or prominent rich person / business leader is more important than ever.

rachofsunshine 2y ago

I go into the background because I don't want to assume people are familiar with a specific company that hasn't even existed for a year-plus, and because I wanted to emphasize that these were the mistakes made by smart, serious people doing their best. If people who have done this before, people in whom very smart, very incentivized people are willing to place their trust, can make these mistakes, I sure as hell can, and so can you. I certainly do NOT intend to say "the founders had cool credentials and that's why they were right about everything". The previous poster to whom you're replying has legitimate criticisms, although I don't think they're correct that those were the reasons for Triplebyte's failure (since we did indeed acquire many candidates with considerable skills, and since the public-profiles incident was a consequence of pivoting, which we did because we couldn't solve bigger problems).

racional 2y ago
How is an obviously foolish and unethical decision to publicly post user profiles without their consent -- "a consequence of pivoting"?
- rachofsunshine 2y ago
  To be clear: it was a bad decision both ethically and tactically, and I am not in any way defending it. I am explaining it, in the same way that one might explain why a bridge collapsed. (I will also note that one piece of the backlash somewhat misunderstood things - the profiles were "public" to subscribers, not to the internet at large, insofar as that distinction is meaningful.) The reason it was a consequence of pivoting is that that decision was made in the context of that pivot. Getting the hypothetical "linkedin for engineers" network up only made sense in the context of existing data, so there was a powerful incentive towards grey/dark-patterns in getting it up and running and, as relevant here, towards motivated reasoning about how it would be received. Or at least, I think it was probably motivated reasoning, because as far as I can tell the surprise at the backlash was sincere (I was not part of the leadership at the time, so this is a retroactive best guess on my part, but one I'm fairly confident in.) That incentive pressure only existed in the context of a company trying to figure out what to do next in somewhat desperate circumstances, and it's in that sense that it was a consequence.
  - renewiltord 2y ago
    Yeah, that didn't seem like a clever move by an ascending company so much as a desperate move by a descending company. Therefore it can't be the reason for the failure.
  - racional 2y ago
    A meaningful explanation of why a bridge collapsed would be: "Facing financial pressure, the board voted to re-open the bridge despite advice from its own experts that it was unsafe and faced a high chance of catastrophic failure." What I'm hearing instead -- is a categorical focus on "incentive pressures", rather than on the obvious lapse of sound judgement on the part of those responsible. As revealed, quite plainly, by their decision to not go with what should have been seen as the only reasonable course of action here -- to resist the temptation to resort to dark patterns, despite the incentive pressures to do so. You say you're "not defending it", but by attempting to but more focus on external factors ("incentive pressures") rather than on the poor judgement on the part of those responsible -- you're doing just that. You aren't denying that an error was made, but you are very clearly attempting to minimize the significance of it. The point of literally saying it was a "result of" external business conditions. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimisation_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimisation_(psychology)

PaulHoule 2y ago

I remember Triplebyte for saturation advertising and paying off bloggers to write spammy articles with titles like “hiring is broken”. Nothing destroys a brand more effectively than ineffective and annoying advertising. (I think of the otherwise great milvlogger who does his own product placements for his own caffeinated gum which I get disgusted just thinking about)