I have not signed up to triplebyte because I don't want to do their screening, but this doesn't make it better. It defeats the purpose.
Rethinking Triplebyte
51–60 of 463 posts
Re: Rethinking Triplebyte
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> part of what made triplebyte valuable (and gave y'all the hundreds-of-thousands-engineer userbase) was the _path to competence-signalling_ which avoided credentials that your platform gave, given the quiz -- companies knew that someone being on triplebyte was a strong signal, and engineers had a path to signalling competence that was one-to-many. On the other hand, when I applied to TripleByte, their feedback to me…
This is a perfect example of why we're making these changes (and the problem that came from us being a gatekeeper). There are lots of different ways to show skill. We don't want to be in the position of deciding who "deserves" a job.
Isn't that what the core value of TripleByte was though? "This person deserves a job." Then some company says "Okay".
Re: Rethinking Triplebyte
#53I 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…
Agreed, I recently used Hired and TripleByte. Hired gave me 2-3x more leads, and they were on avg much higher quality.
Re: Rethinking Triplebyte
#54By far the most exciting thing about this announcement is this feature: "Detailed information on what a recruiter did with your application." I've been wishing for something like this for years . Especially for early-career engineers or people from non-traditional backgrounds, this is insanely valuable because it helps you to know avoid wasting time on applications that will never go anywhere; avoid typing in your re…
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.
Re: Rethinking Triplebyte
#55TripleByte is awful.
Take a look at the question they just asked me when I was doing their General Coding Assessment:
What is the output of the following function? (1m 12s)
function foo(a, b) {
a += 1
b.push(1)
}
const a = 0
const b = []
foo(a, b)
console.log(a, b)Re: Rethinking Triplebyte
#56I 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 something that should exist. I want to try to build it!
Re: Rethinking Triplebyte
#57TripleByte is awful. Take a look at the question they just asked me when I was doing their General Coding Assessment: What is the output of the following function? (1m 12s) function foo(a, b) { a += 1 b.push(1) } const a = 0 const b = [] foo(a, b) console.log(a, b)
What's bad about that? It's obviously testing understanding of scoping and side effects. It's not hard if you understand those things and confusing if you don't, which seems like the kind of question you'd want on a "general coding assessment", no?
The only thing that bugs me about that question is that "the output of the following function" is confusingly worded. It's the sort of question that a competent candidate might get nervous about and start to overthink: wait, that isn't a function, it's a code snippet. The function here is foo – so maybe they mean "what's the output of foo"? But then what does "the output of a function" mean? I suppose they mean return value? Is this a trick question to see if I remember what push returns? Damn it, does it return the entire array or just the pushed element?
That's what my mind usually does with questions like that and I'm far from the only one. Since the goal of the test is to screen for basic competence, it ought not to filter out people who could answer the question perfectly fine if it were being asked clearly, but who also perceive corner cases and ambiguities. Such a skill should make you more likely to pass such a test, not less. Therefore the question ought to say something like "What does the following code snippet write to the console?"
Re: Rethinking Triplebyte
#58The problem with Triplebyte IMHO is that what the originally promised, while a great idea and concept, it cannot scale. Also after interviewing with them for a role in their company I got to realize they don't know how to conduct interviews themselves.
I used them two times. The first one was very early on, where I was given a home assignment and interviewed on it by Aaron himself, if I am not mistaken. The dude was awesome at interviewing, and knew exactly how to probe to get a better understanding of your skills.
That was when they were promising that you can interview with them so you don't have to do technical interviews with the companies. I thought it was an awesome concept and could really reshape hiring in the tech industry.
Second time was a couple of years ago, where the model has already changed a bit. Passed the first round and one of the companies that I could interview for was triplebyte themselves.
What a disappointment! The only difference in the interview process than the rest of the companies was that they gave you a laptop and asked you to do practical coding instead of whiteboard generic algorithm solving.
Some of the interviewers themselves were junior members of the stuff with 0 experience in interviewing.
Re: Rethinking Triplebyte
#59The best thing I got out of Triplebyte was a great piece of written negotiation advice, from a recruiting specialist that has, presumably, since been laid off.
Re: Rethinking Triplebyte
#60TripleByte is awful. Take a look at the question they just asked me when I was doing their General Coding Assessment: What is the output of the following function? (1m 12s) function foo(a, b) { a += 1 b.push(1) } const a = 0 const b = [] foo(a, b) console.log(a, b)
What's bad about that? It's obviously testing understanding of scoping and side effects. It's not hard if you understand those things and confusing if you don't, which seems like the kind of question you'd want on a "general coding assessment", no? The only thing that bugs me about that question is that "the output of the following function" is confusingly worded. It's the sort of question that a competent candidate…
> What's bad about that?
The timer is what is bad about this.
I do not care about the question.
As you say, any competent programmer could solve this in a few seconds, if they are proficient, or minutes if they are not.
In my opinion, they should not put a count down because they are interrupting the programmer’s flow. If they really want to measure time, they do it without interrupting the programmer, hide the timer, let them take as much time as they want/need to solve these problems. Then, at the end of the quiz, show them how long it took them to give a proper solution, and take in consideration that time to score them.
If Alice solved 10 problems in 10 minutes, and Bob solved the same problems in 15 minutes, maybe there is something there that is worth highlighting in their profiles. Maybe Alice is able to analyze this type of questions much faster than Bob, and if that matters to the recruiters or potential employers, then allow the candidate to use that in their favor.
However, if Bob actually knew the answer, but they ran out of time to select an option, that seems unfair.