Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Triplebyte Engineer Genome Project

blog.triplebyte.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 40 posts

Re: Triplebyte Engineer Genome Project

#11

Post by dineshp2 »

Harj wrote: post #3

When we started Triplebyte, we'd thought there would be pretty much a straight line from being a bad to great programmer and we'd just have to figure out where to put the cut off when deciding whether to work with an engineer. The biggest surprise has been just how much disagreement there is amongst companies on what a "great engineer" actually means. That's when we realized we were actually working on a mapping prob…

I assume the (very broad) criteria listed on the blog are supersets of very specific sub critera. Maybe if you could elaborate on what exactly those sub critera are, it would make things clear.

Re: Triplebyte Engineer Genome Project

#12

Post by ammon »

dineshp2 wrote: post #11
Harj wrote: post #3

When we started Triplebyte, we'd thought there would be pretty much a straight line from being a bad to great programmer and we'd just have to figure out where to put the cut off when deciding whether to work with an engineer. The biggest surprise has been just how much disagreement there is amongst companies on what a "great engineer" actually means. That's when we realized we were actually working on a mapping prob…

I assume the (very broad) criteria listed on the blog are supersets of very specific sub critera. Maybe if you could elaborate on what exactly those sub critera are, it would make things clear.

We have specific guidelines / process that we use to measure each. For example, professional coding is a focus on writing clean code, that is well designed on the micro level (good names, good modularity on the function / class level), and good testing. We measure this using a rubric as we watch each engineer code. Low-level understanding is knowledge of how computers work, under the hood (bits, bytes, character encoding, operating systems, networking, etc). Again, we have a rubric (and these topics are covered at multiple points as each engineer goes through the process). Our measurements are not perfect, but companies really do vary widely in how much they care about different areas (understanding how computers work say, vs. having a great coding process). By mapping this and matching we save everyone pain. No one had tried to do this before, and I am pretty excited about it.

Re: Triplebyte Engineer Genome Project

#15

Post by ececconi »

I think this writeup is a tad lengthy. It's not until the fifth paragraph that I understand what's even going on

>Intelligent matching with software is how hiring should work. Failed technical interviews are a big loss for both sides. They cost companies their most valuable resource, engineering time. Applicants lose time they could have spent interviewing with another company that would have been a better fit.

I feel like that should have been the headline for this. For a company that is meant to match people to companies, I think their external communication should be excellent not just good. How can I trust that this company will communicate my strengths and weaknesses in a way other people can understand if it's difficult for me to follow one of their flagship blog posts?

Re: Triplebyte Engineer Genome Project

#16

Post by pfarnsworth »

Harj wrote: post #6
pfarnsworth wrote: post #4

I still don't understand why I would want to go through the hassle of doing an onsite interview with TripleByte only to have to go through further onsite interviews at the hiring companies? If TripleByte's onsite interview allowed me to skip the onsite at the hiring company, then I'd be all for it, but it is like it's just a layer of friction. For the record, I've had zero problems applying to companies by either ema…

Finding the right company to join is hard, you have to find which companies are doing interesting things that match your interests and then narrow down to the ones where you'll be both a technical and cultural fit. Failed interviews are a big time suck and we see that most people only have the stamina to interview with a few companies and they'll often accept one of the first offers they get, rather than optimizing f…

Sorry, I appreciate that you're trying to add value but I still don't see it.

Until you can get the hiring companies to eliminate their onsite interviews and only rely on you to test candidates programming abilities, then there really is no advantage to going through TripleByte. There are only disadvantages.

If I have a bad day and mess up the TripleByte interview, then I'm automatically excluded from a bunch of top companies through TripleByte. But if I apply to each company individually, I get the same chance to perform and a poor performance won't affect the others.

However, if I do well, the only thing I get after doing a TripleByte onsite is to skip is a 1 hr phone screen, which, if I'm good I'll be able to pass anyway. And also I'm still relying on you to give me access to the companies which may or may not be the ones I want.

There just doesn't seem to be any practical advantage to using TripleByte over any other recruiter. I'd in fact skip TripleByte because it requires me to do a lengthy onsite which would require me to take a day off (presumably you don't do this on weekends) on top of the onsites from other companies. And the advantage of skipping phone screens doesn't seem worth it.

Re: Triplebyte Engineer Genome Project

#17

Post by ammon »

nzoschke wrote: post #10

Very interesting. How do I know what I value as an employer? Edit to my own question.... The 7 genome dimensions looks really reasonable. But hypothetically thinking I still want it all!

Employers don't actually (in most cases) have a very good grasp of what qualities they select for. It's function of the engineers doing the interviews and the engineering culture, and most companies are not aware how much this differs between companies. We model what each company looks for by sending them candidates with specific attributes and reading their feedback (we get honest feedback from companies after interviews, which is pretty rare). We're then able to see how feedback for the same candidate differs between companies.

Re: Triplebyte Engineer Genome Project

#18

Post by ammon »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #16
Harj wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finding the right company to join is hard, you have to find which companies are doing interesting things that match your interests and then narrow down to the ones where you'll be both a technical and cultural fit. Failed interviews are a big time suck and we see that most people only have the stamina to interview with a few companies and they'll often accept one of the first offers they get, rather than optimizing f…

Sorry, I appreciate that you're trying to add value but I still don't see it. Until you can get the hiring companies to eliminate their onsite interviews and only rely on you to test candidates programming abilities, then there really is no advantage to going through TripleByte. There are only disadvantages. If I have a bad day and mess up the TripleByte interview, then I'm automatically excluded from a bunch of top…

We never provide negative info to companies. If you fail our interview, you are free to apply to whatever companies you want on your own.

The practical advantage of going through Triplebyte is that you'll pass more interviews. We match you with companies where you will pass at a higher rate. Because you only have time to interview at a fixed number of companies, this will give you more options, a higher salary (from more competition), and a better fit. We also help candidates negotiate (A big help if you're afraid to do this), and help people with bad resumes (say self-taught programmers) get in the door at top companies. Traditional recruiters do just the opposite (they filter heavily on resumes)

Re: Triplebyte Engineer Genome Project

#19

Post by webwright »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #16
Harj wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finding the right company to join is hard, you have to find which companies are doing interesting things that match your interests and then narrow down to the ones where you'll be both a technical and cultural fit. Failed interviews are a big time suck and we see that most people only have the stamina to interview with a few companies and they'll often accept one of the first offers they get, rather than optimizing f…

Sorry, I appreciate that you're trying to add value but I still don't see it. Until you can get the hiring companies to eliminate their onsite interviews and only rely on you to test candidates programming abilities, then there really is no advantage to going through TripleByte. There are only disadvantages. If I have a bad day and mess up the TripleByte interview, then I'm automatically excluded from a bunch of top…

"There just doesn't seem to be any practical advantage to using TripleByte over any other recruiter."

Except, of course, that the companies who work with TripleByte probably trust them a LOT to provide great/qualified candidates. Most companies don't trust recruiters very much at all-- some aren't terribly motivated by anything other than closing as many deals as possible, and the vast majority don't know anything about coding. And many/most of Triplebyte's companies probably don't work with recruiters.

Why do you think failing a tech screen with Triplebyte would exclude you from top companies? You could still apply to those top companies easily, no? When those companies get a promising applicant, they don't do pore thru Triplebyte failed-screens data. Even if they wanted to, I presume that information isn't actually available to them.

Cost/benefit-wise seems like it adds credibility and saves time going with Triplebyte unless there isn't 2+ YC companies you are excited to apply to.

Re: Triplebyte Engineer Genome Project

#20

Post by impish19 »

Whenever someone decides to hire someone, all of their criteria are heavily biased towards what kind of skills the candidates posses.

I wonder if someone can come up with a reasonably accurate way to determine how well or easily can a candidate acquire particular skills.

I realize this line of thought might not be popular for most startups who would want someone to get going as soon as they start. But if you're having a tough time hiring a Machine Learning engineer and you get applications from a bunch of smart folks who want to gain experience in Machine Learning, would it be a good idea to give them a shot?

The traditional 'puzzle solving' in interviews was probably geared in this direction, but I'm wondering if there are better ways to gauge this.

Post reply on HN