Rethinking Triplebyte

There are two categories where people pivot while crushing it:

One. The problem domain they are in is on its way out, and they've decided to defect instead of being the ones left holding the bag.

Two. They hate what they do for a living.

The first company to stop making buggy whips probably did not do it because they weren't selling any. The fact that they ceded market share to their top competitors probably sunk the barb in deeper for them: Yeah people are buying cars but our sales numbers are still going up so why should we change?

In tech we see companies all the time end up being complicit in the destruction of their own industry by reducing its relevance in some manner or other, and by exiting early they have more options of destination. If I jump to the same industry as a competitor a year later I just look like a copycat. While some copycats copy other people, only better, they are the exception to the rule. Most churn out uninspiring derivative work, and if they can't at least do it cheaper then they end up on the scrapheap of history.

I had a pretty bad Triplebyte experience myself.

Scheduled a practice interview and the only slot available was ~6AM my time. Nobody showed up and I wasn't informed that they wouldn't be showing up.

After reaching out about it -- they tried to tell me that my interview scored poorly, and that I would need to retry again in a few months. After some back-and-forth they realized both that it was practice interview and that the person didn't show up. So they rescheduled the practice interview.

When the interview did happen -- this was for ML stuff -- the interviewer was just no great. We spent so much time discussing the differences in terms we used -- mine largely coming from University, there's from I'm assuming their formal education -- that much of the interview was wasted. It literally came down to me deriving what we were not agreeing on for them to understand we were talking about the exact same thing.

I then had to reach out several times for my results, I'm assuming due to the fact that you're allotted one practice interview, and technically I had two(?). When I finally got my results I was again informed that my results were not good enough, and I'd need to wait to reapply. I gently informed them that it was practice interview, and the representative apologized their mistake.

When I reviewed my results... the interviewer didn't rate me too well, largely due to our differences in terminology. They also didn't like my coding style -- even though no one has ever complained to me before -- and rated the coding exercise poorly even though I was able to perform what was asked of me.

I just gave up.

Then several months later, I got an email about being TripleByte certified or whatever.

The whole thing was a really bizarre experience.

Thank you!!!

My random Triplebyte anecdote is that I did good on the quizzes and gave a solid interview, but they declined to represent me. They were transparent about their reasoning: they saw me as somewhat of a specialist in parsing, and they didn't know how to place someone with that peculiar skillset.

Which turned out fine. I found a job where my pre-computer programming work experience was relevant, and here a couple jobs later I'm working heavily with and on parsers.

So. Count me as one engineer they rejected who doesn't hold that against them.

I'm pessimistic about this pivot though, for a couple reasons. One, it smells desperate. Recruiting is sales, and in sales, desperation is the kiss of death. I can't read that blog post without coming away with the strong sense that if this doesn't work, it's over for them. If I can see it, anyone can see it.

Two, companies aren't going to want to work with a firm that's allowing engineers to collect detailed information on douchey behaviour that the company might engage in. Does Triplebyte have the leverage and moxie to make them engage anyway? Probably not, see point one.

I wish them well, because recruiting is awful, interviewing is broken, and engineers deserve to have a better time of it given how demand-driven the market is, and likely will remain for quite some time.

Can't help thinking they'll be writing about their incredible journey within a year or two.

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?