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

81–90 of 463 posts

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#81

Post by codegeek »

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…

"spent it all on ads"

Funny but whenever I think of Triplebyte, all I remember is seeing their ads everywhere. I am personally a fan of Indeed and they do a good job sending leads and applicants other than good old Linkedin.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#82

Post by xyst »

Triplebyte was a dud for me. Way too many garbage startups recruiting.

I have started to re-write my resume for each application and that has yielded much better results in terms of quality of the company and number of interviews.

If you are submitting the same resume to multiple companies, you are doing it wrong.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#83

Post by erik_seaberg »

MattGaiser wrote: post #25

I haven’t actually gone through the TripleByte process, but my impression of the value of the platform to engineers was that only the at least minimally capable ones could be on there. Does this not mean that even if you apply from TripleByte that you now still need to go through FizzBuzz and all that?

> Going forward, our assessments are a purely optional means by which engineers can show their skills to employers (who overwhelmingly tell us that they trust our scoring)

So it sounds like the hiring manager can choose to skip a fizzbuzz call when they know you already passed.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#84

Post by dharmaturtle »

ammon wrote: post #5
dawnho wrote: post #2

Interesting idea. But it seems like there’s room for abuse - won’t engineers, who are unhappy that they didn’t get an offer, just report companies? Don’t you just become Yelp in that case, full of reviews from salty customers? How are you going to get useful data when you’re worried about that?

This is certainly an issue. As you say, it’s a problem on yelp and glassdoor. It’s why most nightclubs have low yelp ratings (people they exclude give them low scores). There are a few things I think we think we can do: 1) Look at relative data, not raw ratings. Written reviews or raw numerical scores are what show the nightclub effect the most. What we care about is a ranking of companies (showing the better compani…

IIRC I wrote about 30 custom cover letters to Triplebyte companies... about 2-3 responded. My response rate to cold emailing/applying to ~10 F# companies is literally 100%. To be fair though, the TB applications occurred right at the start of Covid, and my F# job applications well into Covid.

Anyway, a ghost rate would be greatly appreciated.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#85

Post by thaumasiotes »

rachofsunshine wrote: post #79
ALittleLight wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that what the core value of TripleByte was though? "This person deserves a job." Then some company says "Okay".

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"?

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#86

Post by kumarjsingh6 »

sickygnar wrote: post #43

I'm salty towards the platform because they rejected me a few years ago, and my ego has barred me from using them again despite their outreach. I was also very unhappy when I heard about the public profiles. I don't want people to see that I interviewed poorly, or to have any kind of public record of that. I'm a decent engineer, I swear! I had some bad luck. My nodejs build broke after a recent update on my machine,…

Your preferred language was nodejs after all

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#87

Post by ammon »

cj wrote: post #64
ammon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies do pay us. But I think that our real long-term incentives still pull toward building what engineers want, not what companies want. I think that platforms like LinkedIn and Indeed have just gotten this wrong, because they focus on all jobs (not just engineers), and because demand for engineers is stronger than it has ever been. Take a look at this thread from last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2…

> our real long-term incentives still pull toward building what engineers want, not what companies want. > There is danger that we get pulled toward building for companies. A common phrase thrown around with free services is "if you're not paying for it, you are the product". > For example, companies aren’t normally incentivized to provide salary and culture data. But we can force their hand by promoting transparent…

I generally agree with the phrase "if you're not paying for a product, you're the product". But the market for engineers is just so lopsided that I think it's less true here. There are a lot of recruiting companies. The only real thing that sets one apart from others is whether they have candidates. So one way to look at it is that yes, we are incentivized to build what companies want, but the main thing they want is for us to have engineers. And the only way we get engineers is by building what engineers want.

That does not fully express my motivations. I am an engineer and find the idea of making the process better for engineers more exciting than making it better for companies. But it explains how I think the incentives work.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#88

Post by ornornor »

dang wrote: post #77
ornornor wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be 0, [] a and b are shadowed in the foo function so the function only acts on the shadowed (and copied) variables. Once you return from foo, the const a and b are unchanged. Not a great question as a pass or fail test imho because if you use shadowed names often enough to be able to parse this code in your head, you’re writing bad code. There is a reason why shadowing names is a bad practice: it’s h…

The const on b only applies to the object reference to b, and doesn't prevent foo from changing the contents of b. No doubt that's why the test question includes an array in the first place. At least I assume that's how const works; I've not used const in JS.

That’s possible. In reality, if I ever came across that piece of code and had a bug to fix in it, the first thing I’d do is rename a and b in one scope or the other because it’s just asking for trouble otherwise and it’s not easy to understand what happens to a and b. That’s why I think using this question as a trivia question is bad. But the discussion we’re having about it clearly shows we both know what to look out for, that we’re competent, and is way more interesting than running JS code in our heads. Even if either of us gets the answer wrong, it doesn’t really matter as much as how we got there in my opinion.

Re: Rethinking Triplebyte

#89

Post by gip »

Aperocky wrote: post #54
qchris wrote: post #27

By 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.

My experience is similar but at a differet level of seniorty. I've applied to ~15 jobs for engineering manager and got 1 answer.

On the other end a recruiter reached out to me and I'll be doing the final interview with their VP next week.

I don't think we can draw conclusion at that stage (we are a dataset of 2..). But I'd love to have access to the LinkedIn dataset to figure out if applying for jobs is broken at scale.

Post reply on HN