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

271–280 of 463 posts

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#271

Post by pmoriarty »

RussianCow wrote: post #264
usaar333 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A particular problem with doing that is discussed in the post; you risk everyone's time being wasted if the company will never be able to meet your target.

For a big enough company, you can collect a few data points via Glassdoor[0], levels.fyi, etc to make sure that they pay in the range you're looking for before you even begin the interview process. For smaller companies, you're absolutely right, although I personally tend to give a very broad range[0] at the beginning of the process, and only narrow that down at the offer stage. That's worked well for me in the past.…

"I'm making up numbers, but something like $120k - $200k, with the lower number being the minimum you'd realistically take. Usually recruiters are honest up front if they can't even afford your absolute minimum, but it still leaves you with a lot of negotiation room once the offer comes in."

Why even give an upper limit? It's not like you'd refuse $400k if it was offered to you, would you?

Most companies will naturally start negotiation near the lower end of your range, even if they would have started way higher had you let them make the offer first. I really don't see an upside to this strategy.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#272

Post by ishiz »

slownews45 wrote: post #255
pmoriarty wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never, ever, ever give anyone a number until the salary negotiation stage of the interview (ie. after I've been given a job offer), and even then I only give the company a number as a counter to their offer. I always do this negotiation myself, and never let anyone else negotiate for me. Almost all recruiters have been fine with that, but a couple haven't. To such people I wish a good day and go my own way. There a…

On hiring side we screen folks out pretty quickly who can't discuss money. I used to be much more relaxed about this, but if you get burned doing a few rounds of interviews and it was a waste you wise up pretty quickly - teams do not like time wasted. I've also found that folks who can't / won't talk money - usually not great hires for a bunch of reasons. We're happy to talk through the different positions, levels, p…

Why can't you simply ask the candidate "We offer $min to $max for this position, is that acceptable?" That lets you and the candidate know whether proceeding further is a good use of time.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#273

Post by mikeg8 »

ammon wrote: post #186
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.

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.

So you accepted 6K onto platform, about 4k got offers, and just under 2k accepted. Roughly a 1% conversion rate for those who applied? Yikes.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#274

Post by voxtech »

nightsd01 wrote: post #101

I am a self taught engineer without a CS degree, and I went through Triplebyte at the end of 2017. It was an absolutely incredible experience, and really helped me break into the industry, and I’ll always be grateful to them. I found an awesome startup to work at. And now, years later, I work at a FAANG company, working on tons of interesting problems. Thank you triplebyte, and good luck with the pivot!

Same here, toward the end of 2015. I would not have a serious high-paying job right now if it wasn't for triplebyte. I'm sad to hear the process hasn't scaled because I think that it'd help everyone out if it had.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#275

Post by throwaway12323 »

This simplifies to incentives. Who pays Triplebyte? STILL THE COMPANIES.

So unless there is a simple business model shift to charging the candidates, all of their words are empty. THIS is why they made the mistake of making profiles public, because they were thinking about their customer (THE COMPANIES) and not their product (THE CANDIDATES)

"If you're not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold." Tim Oreilly Tweet

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#276

Post by RussianCow »

pmoriarty wrote: post #271
RussianCow wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a big enough company, you can collect a few data points via Glassdoor[0], levels.fyi, etc to make sure that they pay in the range you're looking for before you even begin the interview process. For smaller companies, you're absolutely right, although I personally tend to give a very broad range[0] at the beginning of the process, and only narrow that down at the offer stage. That's worked well for me in the past.…

"I'm making up numbers, but something like $120k - $200k, with the lower number being the minimum you'd realistically take. Usually recruiters are honest up front if they can't even afford your absolute minimum, but it still leaves you with a lot of negotiation room once the offer comes in." Why even give an upper limit? It's not like you'd refuse $400k if it was offered to you, would you? Most companies will natural…

> Why even give an upper limit?

Because if you just give one number, even if that's your absolute minimum, the entire salary conversation is going to be anchored around that one number, and you're going to have a harder time asking for 50+% more than that. If you give a broad range, it's easier to justify countering with something closer to the top of that range.

> It's not like you'd refuse $400k if it was offered to you, would you?

Of course not, but nobody has ever offered me that. :) In all seriousness, yes, you run the risk of your range coming in below what the company would be willing to pay, but in my experience (and those of friends and acquaintances), outside of FAANG, I have found that to be extremely rare if your range is wide enough. The companies that pay super well are generally big, and thus well-known to pay that much, and I wouldn't give them any salary numbers at all because I'll have a pretty good idea of what they'll pay me with a bit of research prior to interviewing.

Of course, anecdote != data, so YMMV and all that. This is just my experience interviewing at mostly smaller companies.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#277

Post by 908B64B197 »

Igelau wrote: post #137
908B64B197 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think about joining a dev team where no one checked if any candidate could FizzBuzz, you can imagine the workplace environment that can end up with. That sounds hilarious How could a dev team not be able to write 5 lines?

I'd believe it. I got shitlisted at one place for being the only dev with the mathematical insight to know that multiplying pesos by a dollars:yen ratio doesn't yield a correct conversion of pesos to yen. They let that one slide without fixing it, but the final straw that got me frogmarched was refactoring an if-else to a switch.

Sounds like a hidden arbitrage opportunity if they accept to honor that conversion rate!

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#280

Post by devwastaken »

WoodenChair wrote: post #249
devwastaken wrote: post #191

As always with posts about employment, the idea that there's higher demand than supply for engineers is a lie. The demand for highly experienced cheap engineers is high, the demand for junior developers is almost non existent. New CS grads struggle to find employment, there are tens of thousands of very capable devs in open source that cannot find employment. Nobody hears about it because only those that succeed are…

> As always with posts about employment, the idea that there's higher demand than supply for engineers is a lie. The demand for highly experienced cheap engineers is high, the demand for junior developers is almost non existent. Yeah I don’t think this is true. I teach undergraduate CS and our data shows (which we publish at admissions so is public) we regularly have close to 100% job placement within 6 months, with…

I've seen now multiple mail in letters that ask "Have you found employment related to your degree", or a question similiar to it. If you have a compsci degree and end up working an IT phone support job that is counted as "related". Which completely skews the results. Or, better yet, some ask "are you gainfully employed?".

There's good programs out there, but they are in the minority. If you run a good program, that's great. In my experience most places offering compsci are there to take the federal loan money and hand you a piece of paper.

Post reply on HN