141–150 of 463 posts
Because she fucking nailed it with Triplebyte.
I used Triplebyte. I really liked it. The leads were not as great or as numerous as I was hoping, and I felt like I still had to do pseudo-technical interviews anyway. Fucking COVID, man.
I hope this pivot works for them.
I see a lot of people in the comments describe triplebyte as a “market leader” and discuss how good they are. I can’t believe how gullible everyone is especially on a startup forum. Let me spell it out to y’all, nobody pivots and changes their entire business model if they are crushing it. So the implication is that triplebyte are not crushing it. So, this probably has gone the same way as lots of other tech startups…
When I was fresh out of university, I had trouble finding a job. I had worked part-time at a small company through the last few semesters, but that company blew up just before I graduated. Every interviewer I ever met with was impressed because I really knew my stuff, but had trouble getting in the door due to an unimpressive CV and awkward mannerisms.
I did very well at Triplebyte, scoring in their top bucket and getting top marks in several of the sub-categories. Those metrics are relative to all engineers, which would put me even higher amongst recent graduates. I also did very well on every software project I worked on and scored top marks on several other objective tests, like the Major Field Test.
I was exactly the sort of candidate their system should have been able to help. I never even got an email out of it, let alone an interview.
Waste of time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to put candidates in control, build a CRM tool. When a recruiter pings me on LinkedIn or emails me, I have a URL I can send them to with an intake form. No more calls wasting my time, I can see the company/role/salary/etc. up front. The trick here is you need to figure out a business model where you don't take money from employers, because once you do its just the long slide to becoming a shittier LinkedI…
We've talked about things in this area, but this particular framing is pretty interesting. We're talking about it now. I personally like this proposal and am probably going to at least draft a hypothetical spec of it and see how it fleshes out. Thanks for the suggestion!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the case of people who needed us to vouch that they deserved a job, yeah. But: - In borderline cases, we didn't want to risk our credibility and companies didn't want to skip tech screens. So competent-but-not-amazing engineers got shut out. - Our quiz is not perfect, so engineers who didn't fit what we were quizzing got shut out. - Not everyone needs us to vouch for them. Companies (reasonably) trust that someone…
> (and that score is us saying "this person deserves a job") If you're not willing to refer people to companies based on their score, how can you interpret the score as you saying "this person deserves a job"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I graduated I submitted around 50 applications to open jobs around where I live, to almost no feedback at all. I'm in this industry and doing well because of recruiter reaching out to me (multiple times) and not vice versa. The whole idea of applying for jobs just doesn't seem to work at all.
Where did you graduate from?
My major are slightly mismatched though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought this was pretty telling: > We got jobs for over 1000 engineers Given how many years Triplebyte has been running, "over 1000" seems surprisingly low. I wish them luck with their pivot.
I noticed that too, and when you combine it with "Triplebyte has hundreds of thousands of engineers on our platform" it means they aren't doing great with the rate either.
dev)
> I forgot how to implement the zig operation in a splay tree.
employee at Triplebyte)
> To put some hard numbers to this: further down this thread, there's a post about how "any engineer" could answer a question the poster thinks is too easy. I looked up the question in our back end and, in fact, barely a third of people who take our quiz get it right (the correct answer isn't even the most common one!).
So there 1000 job matches and at most (("hundreds of thousands of engineers on our platform" / 3) - 1000) who were incentivized to answer these contrived problems, did so correctly and still couldn't be matched.
So even among the large pool of engineers who have gone thru the process, met some arbitrary threshold of engineer-ness, there's still a huge mismatch between corporate/prospective employee expectations, that I'm not sure will be able to be overcome quickly even with these new initiatives, but it's interesting that they are being pursed now (not surprisingly after the shift in working environment after massive government restrictions on freedom uber alles).
"Jesus this guy writes and writes and says nothing. Wait, there was a link at the top to some sort of TL; DR, let me check on that to find out what the announcement is"
> What are we pivoting towards? To explain, let’s talk about economics for a second.
Nope, I give up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it's worth on the hiring side, applicants lie (or more charitably, wildly overestimate their own abilities) all the time. Of resumes I see, 50% of them will not show up on time to their interview. Of the 50% that do, 80% cannot pass fizzbuzz. Past companies and open source contributions are not perfect indicators. I've seen people with stellar resumes fail to even know the syntax for an 'if' statement in any…
> Of resumes I see, 50% of them will not show up on time to their interview. Of the 50% that do, 80% cannot pass fizzbuzz. Wow, sounds like you either need to change your sourcing or improve your early screening. If that many poor candidates are making it to the interview stage something is wrong with the process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought this was pretty telling: > We got jobs for over 1000 engineers Given how many years Triplebyte has been running, "over 1000" seems surprisingly low. I wish them luck with their pivot.
I noticed that too, and when you combine it with "Triplebyte has hundreds of thousands of engineers on our platform" it means they aren't doing great with the rate either.
I see a lot of people in the comments describe triplebyte as a “market leader” and discuss how good they are. I can’t believe how gullible everyone is especially on a startup forum. Let me spell it out to y’all, nobody pivots and changes their entire business model if they are crushing it. So the implication is that triplebyte are not crushing it. So, this probably has gone the same way as lots of other tech startups…
To be clear, I'm only addressing the comment about how people thinking highly of them are gullible. I had a great experience, twice, within a few months, and that included going through a time of huge uncertainty.
That being said, I was not happy to see each of the changes they've made over the last year or so, and this does not strike me a good direction for engineers. I suppose I have to agree that they are not doing this from a position of market leadership. Perhaps they were providing asymmetric value to engineers, and at the end of the day the engineers are not the ones paying for the service.