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

Rethinking Triplebyte

triplebyte.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 463 posts

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#181

Post by rachofsunshine »

mike_d wrote: post #143
rachofsunshine wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Awesome! I've started a POC, but as with most things I'd rather not have to build it myself.

If you're interested in comparing notes, I'd love to hop on a call with you. (We've got some bookable slots linked at the bottom of the blog post, but I can make time elsewhere if you'd like.)

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#182

Post by wantsanagent »

I like this new direction but the stated power dynamics don't align with their history. The most popular kids in the room (FAANG) define the hiring process and some of them outright refuse to skip steps, which hurt Triplebyte's reach. If those co's get hidden on TB don't you think a ton of engineers will ignore the platform?

In addition, as my username suggests, I really like the idea of a representative for Engineers during the job search process, but I also want to make sure I'm the customer of this representative. If I'm paying TB then I think the incentives are aligned. If they're just a job board then their new stance is opposed to the interests of their true customers (hiring companies) and that won't work out too well for them.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#183

Post by rachofsunshine »

hinkley wrote: post #162
reillyse wrote: post #40

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…

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…

In our case, it's more just an intermediate state between "crushing it" and "failing". We had a product that was working for a subset of engineers, but was running into structural and scaling problems. Simply put, it was (sort of) "crushing it" but was foreseeably not going to keep doing so.

At that point, you can either keep going with what you're doing (and run into an inevitable wall later on) or you can foresee the future problems and pivot before they become unmanageable (which is what we did). Relatively few startups find their final model from minute one.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#185

Post by benhoyt »

ipsum2 wrote: post #179
tdeck wrote: post #102

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.

How much is a referral worth to companies? $1,000? If so, their revenue is only ~$1m, but they've raised $48m.

I have no idea what Triplebyte gets or even what their business model is, but typical recruitment companies get a lot more than that -- on the order of 15-20% of the first year's salary, so on the order of $15-25k. I suspect Triplebyte is less than that, but could be an order of magnitude more than you've guessed.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#186

Post by ammon »

tdeck wrote: post #102
reillyse wrote: post #40

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…

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.

So, under the old model, order 200k engineers applied to us. Because we were exclusive gatekeepers, around 3% of those were "accepted" onto the platform. Around 2/3 of accepted candidates received an offer, and around 1/2 of offers were accepted.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#187

Post by halfofhalf »

I had a great experience with Triplebyte's quiz and interview. I suppose I'm in the category of people from "nontraditional backgrounds"; I majored in English in college. Getting past resume screeners was an enormous relief and an important boost to my career. That boost will have compounding effects for the rest of my life; I love the job I got through Triplebyte.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#188

Post by thebigspacefuck »

Kalium wrote: post #163
babaganoosh89 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, I recently used Hired and TripleByte. Hired gave me 2-3x more leads, and they were on avg much higher quality.

I remember my experience as a candidate on Hired. I pretty consistently got low-grade startup trash (think collectible art trading cards, but digital!) with lowballed comp. If Triplebyte was worse, then it's no wonder they placed so few people.

I’ve had a pretty good experience using Hired the past few months. After getting a lot of small startups, I put that I was only interested in larger companies with 500+ people and I don’t see as many now. There seem to be a fair amount of large companies hiring remote after the pandemic WFH experiment, which is great for me outside of a major tech hub. Most places meet or exceed my salary expectations. I’ve gotten interviews with a few companies I’m quite interested in and would have never thought to apply at. This has required relatively little effort on my part as I usually write a cover letter and tailor my resume only to get rejected without reason, but with Hired I just set up my profile and get hits. I definitely would recommend it to anyone looking around for another job.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#189

Post by ipaddr »

bradleyjg wrote: post #116
reillyse wrote: post #40

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…

I was pretty happy with triplebyte from the hiring side. Slogging through candidates with good looking resumes that couldn’t actually program was expensive for my employer and unpleasant for me. TB took care of that first big cut down. I guess they didn’t hit product-market fit with candidates. Two sided markets are tough.

How did you determine they couldn't program and what made the resumes look so appealing?

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#190

Post by dvt »

curryst wrote: post #174
dvt wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of the 50% that do, 80% cannot pass fizzbuzz. If this is actually true, which I highly doubt (I've interviewed people, too), your process is terrible at preselection. I've heard so much about this "programmer charlatan" that lies on his resume and ends up blowing up million dollar systems, but have yet to see any tangible proof. > Past companies and open source contributions are not perfect indicators. This is self…

> If this is actually true, which I highly doubt (I've interviewed people, too), your process is terrible at preselection. I've heard so much about this "programmer charlatan" that lies on his resume and ends up blowing up million dollar systems, but have yet to see any tangible proof. I've seen similar. I wouldn't say 80%, but somewhere in the 20% range of people on phone screens. If I ask a similar modulo question…

> There are no time constraints

Even ignoring the fact that you keep moving the goalposts and are taking my "marathon" analogy way too literally, the argument that any kind of real-world coding involves "time constraints" akin to a 30-minute stress-ridden whiteboard interview is just bonkers.

Post reply on HN