“Good On Video” Is The New “Good On Paper” With HireHive (YC S10)

Post by pg » Tue, Aug 03, 2010, 5:30 AM UTC

jpeterson wrote: post #84

pg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is for me too, and the reason is that's it's so high bandwidth compared to text. At our stage, we care mostly about the people, and you can tell much more about people from watching them talk than from reading what they write, just as (though not to the same extent) you can tell more about someone from meeting them in person than reading a resume.

Seems like kind of a strange filter to me. What is the connection between how well someone comes across on camera and how good they are at coding and developing a product? You say it's high bandwidth, but is the data useful? 50 terabytes per second of noise is still noise. Also, I don't think this test fares very well in retrospect. Steve Jobs probably would've given a good video resume, but what about Bill Gates, Ma…

Post by cglee » Tue, Aug 03, 2010, 6:38 AM UTC

rdl wrote: post #8

I think realtime interaction is the key element missing from most early-stage screenings, not video. I'd rather have an IM/irc/voice chat with someone, propose problems, and observe how he tries to solve the problem, than canned and rehearsed video clips. The only job for which I'd consider a canned video clip to be really useful is a job which requires producing canned video clips.

Post by exit » Tue, Aug 03, 2010, 7:47 AM UTC

nicholasjbs wrote: post #76

shelly wrote: post #74

This is actually a terrific idea... for applicants who are good on camera. I instantly get deer-in-headlightsy and stiff when the camera starts rolling, so a potential employer wouldn't get an accurate read on me.

Can you think of anything that would help you relax so you could be your true self?

Post by hackinthebochs » Tue, Aug 03, 2010, 1:57 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #91

jpeterson wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like kind of a strange filter to me. What is the connection between how well someone comes across on camera and how good they are at coding and developing a product? You say it's high bandwidth, but is the data useful? 50 terabytes per second of noise is still noise. Also, I don't think this test fares very well in retrospect. Steve Jobs probably would've given a good video resume, but what about Bill Gates, Ma…

It sounds like what you mean by coming across well on video = being charismatic. You seem to assume that's what we're looking for, but it's not. What we're looking for is people who will make good startup founders. We have a lot of data about what good startup founders are like, so we're able to recognize them well enough to make the video useful.

Post by pg » Tue, Aug 03, 2010, 4:07 PM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #97

pg wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like what you mean by coming across well on video = being charismatic. You seem to assume that's what we're looking for, but it's not. What we're looking for is people who will make good startup founders. We have a lot of data about what good startup founders are like, so we're able to recognize them well enough to make the video useful.

Study after study shows that people consider good looking, charismatic people smarter and more trustworthy. How can you make sure you're not falling into the same trap? This seems like it will just degrade into the prettier, charismatic people getting yet another leg up on everyone else.