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

421–430 of 463 posts

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#421

Post by jiveturkey »

pmoriarty wrote: post #208
tdeck wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A small bit of feedback here. I tried TripleByte a couple of years ago and the experience was really polished. I passed the interview and got great detailed feedback which I really appreciated. However, I dropped out completely because TripleByte wouldn't let me see companies without entering in a desired comp number. My recruiter at triplebyte said I could just put in "$1 or $1,000,000" to get past it, but that just…

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…

that used to be true universally. now only true for entry level at big companies.

at senior levels especially, you should know what you want. comp bands are informed by huge data troves now and any edge you may have gotten before is gone due to the fixed and tight bands. just state your requirements and insist on “turnabout is fair play” ie they need to tell you the band. do this during the prescreen and save everyone’s time. if you kill it in the interview you still easily can negotiate to top of band.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#422

Post by jiveturkey »

nostrademons wrote: post #209
tdeck wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A small bit of feedback here. I tried TripleByte a couple of years ago and the experience was really polished. I passed the interview and got great detailed feedback which I really appreciated. However, I dropped out completely because TripleByte wouldn't let me see companies without entering in a desired comp number. My recruiter at triplebyte said I could just put in "$1 or $1,000,000" to get past it, but that just…

Semi-serious question, asking for an indeterminate person: If your desired comp number actually is $1M/year, will that just flag you as a joke to Triplebyte companies? With post-pandemic stock price increases a lot of engineers at FAANGs are making more than that now.

if your desired comp is $1M, i doubt triplebyte is the route to it. you would need to use your network.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#423

Post by BurningFrog »

tomp wrote: post #352
BurningFrog wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that question applies equally to both parties.

No it doesn’t. The company is fundamentally in a much better negotiating position (they have much more data on salaries) and carry way less risk than the employee (a company has many employees, each employee has just one job).

I see this kind of argument a lot, and I don't think it's valid in general. People confuse "big" with "having power over me", or something.

In this case, obviously a job seeker does have many possible employers to apply to.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#424

Post by BurningFrog »

dboreham wrote: post #310
duxup wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't you just tell them a range you're offering?

Because then the candidate will be upset when you lowball them because they're not as strong or experienced as your range max merits.

Might be a way to filter out the Perpetually Angry Engineers...

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#427

Post by nostrademons »

agrajag wrote: post #373
nostrademons wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stock price for most of the FAANGs has gone up by about 2.5x in the last year. If you had $200K base, $50K bonus, and $300K stock compensation in 2019, you're now making $1M today. That's roughly L6/E6/ICT6 (staff) level.

Which FAANG has had their stock go up 150%? They’re all doing well, but even Amazon hasn’t doubled their stock since prepandemic. There are definitely more people making 1m/yr at FAANGs than their were last year, but I agree with others that it’s not “a lot.”

FB in May 2019 = $177.47, today = $332.04, 87% appreciation.

AMZN in May 2019 = $1775, today = $3496, 96% appreciation.

AAPL in May 2019 = $43.77, today = $130.87, 198% appreciation.

GOOG in May 2019 = $1103, today = $2508, 127% appreciation.

That's all over the last 2 years. Market low was apparently Dec 2018, before the Fed started cutting interest rates, so the numbers are a bit bigger since then. They were pretty steady through 2017-2019, so anyone who got grants or refreshers during those time periods has benefitted from that appreciation.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#429

Post by kragen »

ammon wrote: post #56
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…

Fair comment. I certainly don't think of us as a market leader. LinkedIn is the market leader. Honestly, the last year has been pretty hard for us (COVID and the problems with our model that I talk about in the post). That said, I think a hiring process that puts engineers in control (no ghosting, get data on when a recruiter looks at your application, search ranking by whether companies lie to candidates) is somethi…

LinkedIn doesn't provide the vetting service Triplebyte does; they don't tell employers anything about job candidates' quality. It sounds like you want to pivot from the small market where you were the market leader into the larger market where LinkedIn is.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#430

Post by wayoutthere »

htrp wrote: post #38
wayoutthere wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the recruiting side (I’m not a recruiter but a director making a lot of hires), we actually do the opposite all the time — we post relatively senior positions then downlevel whoever we hire to fit their experience level. A lot of people think more highly of themselves than the employment market does. We look at the job posting as a brand marketing — all we’re really trying to do is get you to apply and fill the fu…

Downleveling is a flaming trainwreck in almost every case. Seems almost like the bait and switch that the OP company is railing against in the blog post. I'm curious to see how you guys have managed it without disgruntled employees quitting within 18 months.

We have the conversation about level before we give an offer. It’s genuinely because we don’t want to put someone in a role they’re going to struggle with and be unhappy or burn out. I would much rather underlevel someone starting out and promote them 6 months later than hire them at a higher level and then needing to have the conversation about performance early in their tenure or cut their bonus.

I work in consulting so high turnover is just expected. We’re actually a lot lower than the industry average. The job isn’t for everyone, but there are people who thrive in this environment. For everyone else who isn’t a good fit, we get a year or so worth of billable hours, they get exposed to a lot of different scenarios, and we give folks a lot of runway to find something they do like.

It’s just the nature of the beast though. If I get a candidate who is legitimately at level, I bring them in at level. There’s no need to be shady about it, but job search sites are what they are and that’s the game you play.

Post reply on HN