Unfortunately, my experience with TripleByte was terrible and a waste of my time. I completed the interview with a very high evaluation across all categories as provided by the interviewer.
There were certain areas where the interviewer messed up in their evaluation, e.g. they felt I "was a little weak at hashmaps and API design", which is probably because they did not know what I was talking about when I described the details of advanced hashmap implementations. There seems to be a bias to discredit the interviewee if the interviewer lacks knowledge in an area.
Either way, despite getting great evaluations, I was matched with a total of 5 companies most of which were highly underwhelming early stage companies with minimal traction. Furthermore, I was matched with full stack companies despite begin evaluated as "weak in API design", which is perplexing. I was able to get higher quality offers in my own search and it seems like the TripleByte pipeline consists of many mediocre companies.
If I had known, I wouldn't have wasted my time with this service and invested more time in my job search.
I had a common point about hashmaps -- the interviewer seemed to be at loss, and was asking weird questions that had little connection or relevance to the implementation path I'd chosen -- I politely explained the confusion and we swiftly moved on. They then marked that as a weak/"fuzzy" spot in their evaluation. I made sure to give my feedback about this to the person who shared the evaluation, but did not receive a response.
In the end, after making it to the company-matching phase, they found a whopping 1 company with <5 people, in an area I had clearly said I didn't plan on moving to. I don't know which part of the data-centric recruiting process got this so badly wrong.
Hoping that this process improves, but so far it hasn't lived up to expectations and I ended up finding multiple great matches on my own afterwards.
I ran the TripleByte course once, and it was 100% not worth my time as a professional.
The "coding test" was criminally simple, but got me in the door quickly for an interview. I spent a number of hours building out projects with a paired interviewer, as well as answering questions. This part I enjoyed, it felt like a nice back and forth while building an interesting bit of software. It was like an open discussion, and getting to tap away on my laptop was such an enjoyable time.
Then came the technical questions. The interviewer asked if I knew anything about a specific Technology X. I'd list the tech here by name, but it's so specific I'm afraid of it being linked back to me. It's not something most engineers would run into.
I responded with "I have not worked with that, I've heard of it" as well as it never being listed on my resume or professional work. The interviewer went ahead and simplified it down for us to discuss, much like "Ok well it works like this, so let's chat abstractly". I went along with the discussion since I figured it would be fine to chat abstractly about a technology I never worked with.
The interview concluded, we parted ways and I thought things went very well.
The following days later I received an e-mail from Triplebyte. They praised my clean code and thought process, but specifically said my weakness in said Technology X, which I would like to call out again I never worked with professional nor had it listed as a skill or on my resume, was too much to consider me for the next round.
TripleByte literally evaluated, and discounted me, on not knowing an uncommon bit of technology. Just what the hell.
I was shocked at the levels of failures that occurred to reach this point. It was unfair to use that as any benchmark, and unfair to waste a day of my time doing that. It was a smack in the face to an industry vet like myself.
I tell all job seekers to stay far, far away from TripleByte for this reason. They're not really changing the game at all, but like to pretend they are the magic answer.
One footnote: I'm an engineer at one of the giants (Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, etc) who was and is way more qualified than anything TripleByte was or is pushing out.
Echoing with a similar bad experience although this might be their customer's (Mixpanel) fault. I applied to Mixpanel and they sent me a Triplebyte quiz. They bugged me a few times to fill it out and then promised to give me feedback "very quickly". I never heard back (I applied several months ago) and sent them 3 - 4 follow up emails.
I'm not sure if the fault lies with Triplebyte or Mixpanel but it was an overall shitty experience. To be asked to take out your time to complete a quiz (which can be automatically scored with an algorithm since its multiple choice) and then get radio silence is terrible. Even if it was Mixpanel's fault, they should ensure their partners actually follow up with interviewers. For example, I know that Hired (another platform) actually will ding an employer that doesn't respond to applicants.
Anyways, Mixpanel & Triplebyte are probably on my "never apply to again ever" list.
About a week ago, I did some A/B testing. I completed their online screener twice. Once answering all of the questions as good as possible. The other answering the questions with the third option (multiple choice). In both cases, I passed the screener. (shrugs)
What was always most interesting to us about starting a recruiting company was seeing what would happen if you treated hiring as a data problem. Partly we've raised more funding for the same reason any startup does, so we can grow faster to get more customers = more revenue = more success, etc. But we're also driven by how the larger the scale we operate at, the faster we can run experiments to answer questions about the best way to evaluate technical skills. More rigorous and data focused approaches to hiring benefit everyone.
Interviewing and evaluating engineers is an area a lot of people feel passionately about and have strong opinions on. We're continually looking for ways to improve our process, if you've any thoughts or feedback please ping me - harj at triplebyte.
Wow. Is it just me or does that sound like a downright horrifying company to deal with as a candidate?
At our company, we try to painstakingly craft our recruiting experience to make sure each candidate we interview has a good experience and ends up with a positive impression of our company regardless of whether or not we end up sending them an offer. At the end of the day, we're all human beings, each with something unique to bring to the table, even if that something might not be what we're looking for for a particular role at the moment.
Maybe past some scale we'll have to start changing our approach and start reducing candidates down to data points and "run experiments" on them like lab rats, like Google, et all, and these guys here seem to be so proud of themselves for doing, but I'd sooner quit than to stay a part of a company that does that.
I haven't been interviewed by you, but the initial process is stellar! Applying and going through the code challenges was very smooth. Plus the fact that on completion, if the applicant passes, are pretty much guaranteed some form of an interview, is great.
Just wanted to say thank you! I used Triplebyte to find the company I'm currently working for, and I've had a wonderful time here so far. The process took a little longer than I had anticipated, but it was well worth it :)
The crux of this problem in my opinion is that long term results aren't tracked.
It's hard enough internally to track someone's performance over the course of the year or two after they get hired, it would be even harder to do it if you are a recruiting company.
It's especially sensitive because employers are weary of sharing employee performance data to third parties because of the high risk of a lawsuit (there is clear precedent for these lawsuits.)
Once that data problem is bridged, it blows the problem right open for data to be explored and figure out what exactly predicts a top performer, in any field.
Hi,
I just went through the interview questions, they were fun (they said that I did exceptionally well, but nothing concrete, like percentage). I'm not looking for job, just though I try it out.
What I was interested in is whether the questions get harder, if I answer well, but they seemed random.
You could use logistic regression to estimate the level of an interviewer and adjust the questions to get to the same accuracy with less time (or to improve accuracy with the same number of questions/time)
My interactions with Triplebyte have been less than good and honestly am concerned about the company as a whole (perhaps my thoughts are misplaced).
In a prior conversation on HN (link below), I brought up some aspect of my interview (interviewer late, argumentative, smug, etc.). Then the interviewer came on to HN and PUBLICLY SHARED PORTIONS OF MY INTERVIEW. Honestly, should have been fired on the spot, but nope.
To the interviewers credit, after I was the number one comment for most of the day he deleted that portion of the comment. I am grateful (looking back now) that was removed, however I think it speaks volumes.
My two cents, is the idea is good - there is some room for improvement. What's scary is putting one company as a wall between you and the employer. I hope it never comes to pass where they control even 5% of the market. No one should be able to interview better than the company itself and employees shouldn't use a service which upon being declined blocks them from other companies. I don't believe that's the case (yet), so no qualms for the time being.
Given my experience, I hope they've improved and would happily change my view if I had reason to.
It's really easy to game Triplebyte. It's probably really easy to game all the online interview platforms. May be it's hard to game Interviewing.io, because they have you chat w/ an actual person.
$50m in job offers last 6 months at $130,000 average salary, with 70% of job offers being accepted/signed = 267 people got hired in the past 180 days after completing roughly 30,000 interviews (based on the 5000/month quoted in the article).
That means the chances of being hired after doing a TripleByte interview is slightly under 1% if my back of the napkin calculation is accurate.
Only 267 people in 180 days? Sounds low. I guess it might not be based on the number of interviews as I am not sure how selective the hiring companies are being.
My experience with triplebyte was positive, but the interviews with the companies I matched with was not.
The first thing every company asked for was my resume, clearly they had not bought into the triplebyte process. Some seemed entirely unfamiliar with triplebyte.
Interviewing can be a sad process. Triplebyte gave me a taste for what things could be like, but didn't give me any advantage in the application process.
The companies triplebyte matched me with resulted in some of my worst interview experiences. Think disinterested ceos, hostile line of questioning, and a focus on my previous job experience vs things I would have liked to talk about (open source, personal projects)
As a job seeker, how is TripleByte different than the other companies that spam my email inbox with their own "exclusive" coding tests? It seems to me that when you peel back the fancy website, TripleByte is not functionally different from the hiring agencies on other job boards (cough cough, Dice) that would advertise an "exciting opportunity" with their nameless client in order to hook you into signing a contract with them. ("Hey, while you're not qualified for this role, we have others that come by our desk constantly. So how about letting us sell you to other companies?")
EDIT: Their website layout is a classic agency layout.
> header with giant "sign up" button
> "top tech companies" in big print as a selling point
> huge section with the most "famous" companies in their client pool
> free cost (you're the product they're selling, so they're not looking out for a best fit - they're looking to get paid for placing you)
> testimonials
> blogroll that reads like it was built solely for SEO
Do programmers love numbers and algorithms so much they want to be reduced to them? Programmers are people and should be treated as such.
Also, shouldn't we be concerned that giving one company's algorithms control over who gets hired will be too much power in too few hands? And algorithms are not neutral. The people that make the algorithms have biases and discriminations just like regular people do but at least if your company does its own hiring you can work on figuring out what those are and how to address them. How can you do that if you depend on some proprietary algorithm?
And what about disabilities? How does your algorithm handle those? Racial bias? So many unanswerable questions.
I have many issues with the way most companies interview but giving up that process to a proprietary algorithm seems like the worst solution. This is not news to be celebrated.
This quote from the TechCrunch article was to me the most striking element of this story. They already yield double the rate of good candidates:
""The metric that companies care most about is what percentage of on-site interviews convert into hires, and the industry standard is 20 percent. Triplebyte’s placement rate is 40 percent," says Taggar."
That's nice but averages aside, anything less than 50% for on-site candidates (or final round interview candidates) that don't get an offer means your process is very likely broken somewhere else upstream and you have work to do on your interviewing and sourcing funnel.
I wonder if these numbers are comparable. For the 40% to be true their candidates would have to interview at a maximum of 2.5 of their cleints on average. That doesn't seem to fit with their model.
This is great news. Hiring needs to be better solved.
The current screening process provides a low signal of competence, and so companies have to rely more on credentials (degrees, previous company brands) during screening, which means that a lot of skilled people still can't get their feet in the door at companies if they don’t “look right”, and companies fight over a restricted talent pool.
Lack of hiring data for smaller companies means they copy larger company’s interview processes, but there’s no strong forcing function to drive innovation in larger company’s hiring processes (i.e. their success could be despite a bad interviewing process - because they have a brand and offer a lot of perks, hence attracting the best talent, and so they aren’t in a “we have to fix hiring or we will die” mode).
This also really hurts startups - who aren’t in positions to take risks with hiring, and with a lack of good evaluations, have to rely on credentials, which restricts their pool, and makes them compete with the big cos for that talent.
Another important implication of fixing hiring is that it will introduce a powerful forcing function on higher education institutions. If students know that they can get jobs without having “traditional” credentials, but if they can pass, say TripleByte’s, or some other company’s, assessment which is more aligned with what’s required on the job, and is a signal that companies believe in, then students can use money that they would have spent on college to instead actually learn the skills that would be useful on the job.
This movement of money out of higher education, would fund a lot more experiments in learning and education.
I can’t stress how important I think this problem is to solve, and I’m glad companies like TripleByte, interviewing.io, are working on it. We need more companies, more approaches, more experiments in this space.
> We started Triplebyte because we were frustrated by the noise present in every step of the hiring process.
This is largely just a software/technology problem. In all other professional industries there are means to validate a candidate's competency before they are allowed to interview for a position: licensing, required internships, legal certifications/authorizations, authorized relationships, and so forth.
Technology doesn't have this. The big difference is that in those other professions they are using the interview to actually interview the candidate, as in the person. In software and technology the entire interview is used to gauge basic competency and even then the trust relationship is inherently broken.
Contrary to what technologists will tell you the problem isn't the hiring process or low salaries (preposterous answer unless you live in the bay area). These are symptoms of a broken trust relationship. Hiring companies inherently do not trust the people they are interviewing as basically competent unless they have been told otherwise by somebody they know personally.
Hiring companies shouldn't trust a candidate is minimally competent, because there is no means to a standard baseline on which competency is measured. That is the primary problem. Solve for this problem and the resulting symptoms are easily addressed by the marketplace as a matter of economics.
---
The problem is very clear to see when you have two simultaneous careers: one as a software developer and a different one in an unrelated industry that has professionally addressed these concerns with required professional education and accreditation/licensing.
I believe that this problem is far, far, far more pervasive than just a software/technology problem.
> there are means to validate a candidate's competency before they are allowed to interview for a position: licensing, required internships, legal certifications/authorizations, authorized relationships, and so forth.
The problems with credentials that you mention:
1. They are often weak signals of actual competence, and in the case that they are decent, there is still a lot of room for improvement through experimenting via a data driven process (current credentialing is, in many cases, outdated, and doesn't map to what actual work is like).
2. They are not accessible by everyone. This is problematic as the means to learning is becoming more accessible (through online education, etc.), but the credentialing is still restricted - since the institutions that hand them out haven't scaled credentialing. There is a lot of opportunity to provide signal for competence that scales... and measures skill that is actually used on the job (which is also changing as technology matures and penetrates other industries - we'll need a credentialing system that can adjust to those changes quickly).
In fact, I'll go as far as to say that this is a bigger problem in non-software industries. At least in software, there is a more objective way to measure a candidate's competence independent from the path they took to gain that competence. This means that people that might not have necessarily had a formal education / credentialing have a sliver of a chance of an opportunity to prove their skill. In other industries, if you don't have the credentialing, you have no shot.
On the contrary, I think software/technology is a field where objective assessment of candidate's competency is relatively easy, and the professions requiring accreditation/licensing are relatively rare.
Do you think requiring those credentials would benefit software industry as well? Is that enough for top companies to base their hiring decisions on?
> Hiring companies inherently do not trust the people they are interviewing as basically competent unless they have been told otherwise by somebody they know personally.
Is this why it's so hard to find work by applying through a job portal?
I decided to comment after seeing a number of negative comments here. I went through the process a it was a positive experience for me. I ended up interviewing at 5-6 places and didn't receive an offer. I liked getting the interview feedback. The time saved in skipping the usual application process seemed worthwhile to me ( You spend 2(?) hours on the triplebyte interview. Then a short introducutory call with each company you are matched and the onsite interview). My only complaint was that I was looking for larger and my matches were all 5-50 employee companies. I guess not many large firm are using them. Overall I would recommend triplebyte for anyone who is interested in startups and who currently in a full time job search.
"Evaluating" 5000 engineers a month almost seems low to me - they've been going full bore with advertising and have been on the top of reddit for the last month or two (and if I remember correctly I think I've seen them on twitter and FB). With this much spend I would have thought they'd have more candidates. Maybe thats a lot!
Google says there are 3,500,000 software engineers in the USA. If they are doing 5,000 a month, that means they are interviewing about 2% of all the engineers in the US each year. That's not totally accurate because it doesn't account for those breaking into the field or if international candidates are going through the process. Either way, that's a lot of candidates.
The only advertisements I see on Reddit anymore are from triplebyte. I'm not even looking for a job (still a student), and I won't be for at least another 9 months.
Further down the comment thread, the interviewer came on and shared information about my interview (essentially because I called them out for rude and smug - which IMO they were).
I had a great experience with Triplebyte as a candidate (now hired employee), but I'd love to see them expand to other categories. Remote-friendly companies is a big one, but even more important is different skill levels. Right now triplebyte is oriented around finding the best, instead of finding everyone and helping employers get a candidate whose career path matches their needs.
Their process is fantastic. I can see them replacing first round interviews entirely at some companies if they can look for all the candidates companies need, not just the most senior.
Not nearly enough people in the hiring chain understand the importance of this.
Whether an employee can get along with co-workers is probably by far the most important metric in most jobs, yet it's mostly ignored because it's hard to test for. I guess companies hope they'll figure out if someone's a bad fit while they're still in a probationary period or something.
The most skilled worker in their field is useless if they can't cooperate and communicate effectively with others.
With the loyalty, willingness to learn and work ethic you can usually expect from an initially lower-skilled employee (along with lower wages/cost), a little training could turn them into a hugely valuable team member in fairly short order if a company makes an effort to ramp them up properly. Giving more of these people a shot will dramatically increase your odds of finding team members who work together well and become greater than the sum of their parts.
This idea of ignoring everyone who doesn't fit a ridiculously narrow criteria causes a whole lot of missed opportunities across the board. You end up hiring a bunch of elites-on-paper all trying to outmaneuver each other into the most possible money who will be gone in 2-3 years, while 'less attractive' candidates who would actually care about the work and tend to stick around get tossed in the garbage without even being seen.
I went through the process & got some attractive offers. I had mixed thoughts overall. Initially, they told me the benefit was I can avoid white boarding & on site coding challenges, however all the companies had their own white boarding or coding challenges. The hotel they put me in was in the Tenderloin, a bad part of town. I had lunch with Triple Byte & they were all very nice. Overall it was a positive experience so much so that I did not submit my urban fee/uber costs for reimbursement, seeing as I got offers on the upper end of their range & still turned them down. Going through their process has easily made me 2x as strong of a developer & helped me recognize my own worth.
It might mean something like the test predicts better than a randomly-selected interview whether a candidate will eventually be hired. The real question is whether the interview here is an unstructured interview or a structured interview. Industrial psychologists have been pointing out for decades that unstructured interviews are awful, even though everyone keeps doing them, so it wouldn't be surprising if they can be outperformed by even a simple checklist or test. (There are similar, somewhat infamous, results for things like judges and parole - where simple linear models can outpredict the experts.)
I'm one of the co-founders at Triplbyte. What this means is that our statistical model now significantly outperforms our own interviewers (and me) at performing a structured interview, and then making a judgment about whether a candidate will or will not go on to do well at interviews at other companies. It is slightly meta, because we're using an interview to predict other interviews. But I find it very exciting, because a) it means we're more accurate, and b) we know exacly what features we're feeding into our model, and can avoid a lot of the bias in the process.
> does the test successfully identify the people who have the best portfolios of things they’ve built previously
Even with an algorithm doing the identification, any data produced is still going to be highly subjective (based on the "best portfolio" ideas of TripleByte and whoever worked on the algorithm).
Anyone care to comment on how the whole Triplebyte process goes as a person who wants to be hired? I'm interested since I never got past the set of questions due to some kind of bug in the beta.
I went through the process about 2 months ago, and I really enjoyed it.
After the initial quiz, I had a ~2 hours interview with a human, which included a 1h "pair programming" challenge, random technical questions on my field, general CS questions and architecture (system design) type of questions.
Once I passed that step, my talent manager (the person who helps facilitating the discussion with the companies) told me IIRC that about 1 in 5 passes the human test.
Based on my skill set and preferences, the system "offered" some 30-something companies, and I chose to have an introductory call with ~10 of them. Each company has some background information, what they're good for (in TripleByte's opinion), their general size and their engineering size. Some companies (the bigger names) have additional steps before the on-site, like another pair-programming session or take-home exercises.
From those calls, 5 on-site interviews stemmed, and 4 of those resulted in an offer.
TripleByte also helped arranging the on-site all in the same week, so if you're remote you don't have to fly back and forth all the time.
I'll answer, made a throwaway because I don't want to be identified. I did the quiz, moved straight to remote Triplebyte interview. Then to on-sites with 3-4 companies. Got along great with everyone, rocked many of the algorithm and system design questions (and some not). Got zero offers.
I am a swe with 2-3 years of experience, maybe four depending on how you count experience maybe, speak at lots of large conferences, contribute to open source, etc. I feel (and have data to back up) like Triplebyte sold me as a 5-7 years experience person, so only got interviews with companies looking for senior people. Really got along great with all companies and I have historically been a great judge of how my interviews have gone, but I think Triplebyte overselling me essentially caused me to waste a week of my life. Feel free to handwave and say I am blaming Triplebyte for my failures (of which I have many), but I do think I would have had 1-2 offers otherwise. Although to be fair, the 130-140k comp most companies mentioned would be a significant pay cut and may not have been do-able for me even if I had received an offer.
Around the middle of 2017 I interviewed with them to be a part time interviewer. It was something they promoted on HN for a while.
They put me through the standard interview process along with additional discussion about the interviewer position.
Overall they're much better than most startups but have room for improvement.
The good:
They kept me well-informed throughout the process and set proper expectations. They were prompt with followups and stuck to the schedule they set. My interviewers were knowledgable, clearly software engineers.
The bad:
Too much focus on algos and CS fundamentals, not enough on higher level concepts and what makes someone a good fit for an available position.
I understand it's really hard to have a generic evaluation that covers multiple potential roles. That said, I believe that these questions do not select for good employees for most roles. They are biased to select for recent college grads and people who are willing to study before interviewing.
For example, they asked me about bloom filters. 95%+ of startup software jobs will never have to deal with bloom filters. Why would you ask about them? Ask something that will actually be encountered on the job.
To add a little background I was responsible for our hiring process in my last position, including interviewing, so I'm a bit opinionated about this.
I had a great experience, even as someone primarily working in embedded development. They only targeted SF & NY when I went through their process, which wound up unexpectedly being a dealbreaker for me, but if it weren't for that I absolutely would've taken one of their offers.
I ended up not taking a job through them (I did the math and relocating to SF meant I would have a longer commute and only slightly more pay after housing my family of 6), but the process was great.
After the initial test, there is a fairly long phone/remote desktop interview that consists of:
* Writing code (on your actual machine with the tools and language of your choice!) to solve a simple problem.
* Debugging (a smallish program with 5 failed unit tests)
* General knowledge questions (databases, web (both html and http), data-structures algorithms)
The phone interview then ended with them giving you a couple of tips on answering the non-technical interview topics that a lot of engineers flub (why do you want to work here, when can you start, compensation).
The next day I got a list of over a dozen positions with the recommendation that I pick at least 5 to move on to phone screening.
The phone screenings went well (3 of them were just varients of "all the candidatese triplebyte has sent us were great, so we just want to talk about our company"). This was also my first hint that compensation would be an issue; one company was immediately ruled out because they were early stage and I can't pay a mortgage with equity.
Then triplebyte scheduled the on-sites all in the same week so that I wouldn't have to go back-and-forth to the bay area.
Ultimately Apple was the only company on my list paying enough to get me to relocate, and they passed on me.
I did the Triplebyte interview around six months ago. It was pretty pleasant. (I used Triplebyte because I'm self taught, without a college degree.) I really like the company I ended up getting hired at. I only interviewed at my current company, though, so it's very possible I just got lucky.
I find interviewing unpleasant. Triplebyte's interview wasn't an exception, but it was less unpleasant than most. Even though they choose not to move forward with me, I thought the feedback was valuable and I don't regret having gone through the process.
I passed the quiz and moved on to the phone interview.
Overall I don't think it was a good experience for me.
The interview was pleasant but long. Since they are more of a recruiting firm than anything, they are able to ask questions in a way that an organization looking to hire won't. It allows the candidate to be more candid and detailed with their knowledge and expectations. I thought it went well enough but I did not proceed to the company matching phase.
It is _very_ clear that they are looking for a specific type of developer - a type which I reckon probably doesn't need Triplybyte in the first place. I am not a web/rails/whatever developer, nor am I a senior engineer with very niche skillsets like low-level systems, etc.
The feedback I got was mostly positive, but contradicted itself in odd ways (pro: "we like your DB skills" / con: "work more with DBs") and really just translated to "you aren't marketable to startups and don't have the pedigree / experience needed to throw at our larger clients."
I suppose if you have an popular or incredibly niche skillset that is in-demand, but are having trouble getting the attention of companies for whatever reason (it happens), TripleByte is a decent shot. But if you have more general experience / a skill-set that
Ultimately they are a business and they have to operate this way, so I understand being turned down. I was, however, disappointed that I was 'let down' in a way by the vision I was pitched of what TripleByte claims to do / be.
I was interviewed by them. Best process ever. Easy, straightforward, had options but I wasn't really interested in working for other people anyway. They let me code in ClojureScript for the snake game if memory serves. Also, this was many years ago when they initially started out so I am assuming they only got better.
I worked with them roughly a year ago, and it was incredibly straightforward and enjoyable! I went through the online test and two video conference interviews before being matched with a generous list of companies that matched my preferences, both small and large. The people I worked with (shoutout to Michelle and Buck) also kept in constant contact throughout the entire process, ensuring that things were going smoothly from the company-side after matching. All in all, I heartily recommend Triplebyte to anyone who's looking to streamline their search process, and to see how much better the interview procedure can become.
Took the quiz just over a year ago, and passed the phone interview. I stated my preference to avoid very small / early stage startups, and got interviews at Asana, Apple, and a medium-sized startup. Accepted the Asana offer, where I have been working for a year.
I think Triplebyte was really useful for me because I didn't have a CS degree and didn't have any work history directly in tech, so I couldn't get through resume screens via direct applications and didn't really know many people who could refer me. So Triplebyte had high value in getting me actual the actual technical interviews. I'm not sure how valuable it would be for others who don't have trouble with this, but given the minimal time investment (a few hours for phone interview), it's probably worth a shot regardless.
Disclaimer: I am building a startup in this problem space.
Does anyone think that social proof could work here? If 15 peers endorse Sally for React Native and those 15 people are likewise found to be credible, could such a network effect be more valuable than a coding test?
Obtaining endorsements is a different skill from RN. Those on linkedin with all the endorsements are not the ones doing the work but the social operators that value networks and symbols more.
Late reply, but I think it should be exceedingly valuable, but at the highest quality you'll get a lot of noise. There are a lot of engineering organizations that put out bad code.
I'd consider recommendations from CTOs, former Senior or Principle engineers to be the #1 indication that the person can do what they say they can do. Verify a bit more, but honestly the college level micro-optimization whiteboard-only BS questions are mainly only useful for checking new grads.
Do they have lots of jobs on offer?
I passed the quiz and was accepted after the technical interview in late 2017 (I must say the interview was very well done and the feedback was very constructive), but they had 2 matches for me in NYC, of which neither progressed to a company interviewed. I heard of others that had a similar experience.
I got my current job with Triplebyte. I’m incredibly happy with how it all worked out and couldn’t recommend it enough.
I got to interview with some pretty exciting/interesting companies.
The only problem with Triplebyte, in my opinion, is that I don’t think they track job success AFTER the hire. I imagine this is probably a problem they’re working on. But it’s hard to build a successful recruiting company if you don’t know what happens to the employees once they actually get hired.
I hope we move towards recruiting being a culture/attitude problem and not really a skills data problem.
Most jobs are repeatative and most engineers adapt. So important is to identify culture and attitude fit.
The problem with raising the bar for interviewing engineers is the work that they end up doing isn't moving at same pace.
With more frameworks, better languages and open source building stuff is getting easier
While I can totally understand the need for this by hiring managers who need to get people onboard without wasting too much time, I am a little bit skeptical of being reduced to a simple number in some sort of a machine learning algorithm. Especially if this algorithm is then being used by half the companies in my area.
I think hiring is a difficult process because we need to work with others and people are different in general.
I have personally worked with people who started programming just because they were interested in it - they had no knowledge of algorithmic complexity but they were very open-minded, had a great perspective on the domain and were a pleasure to work with.
This is very anecdotal of course but I sincerely hope that they would have been able to make it past the online quiz...
(If you're thinking they should be smart enough to be able to game the quiz, then my question would be - why not just screen everyone in person then? Of course, that's not scalable and not worth the 50 million then...)
Thinking about it, I think I understand their insight now. The idea is that, even if you got triplebyte-d, the startups will pass you through their interviewing process - let's be realistic for a sec. So triblebyte is not about getting you hired, I mean, not directly. It's about something else.
Thing is, a startup cant do like amazon and actually dive into every random applicant. It's too big of a work. So, a startup is limited and can only use recommendations in order to even think about interviewing someone.
Now, what if a company would do the grunt work and select a few of those random applicants and submit them to the companies. That would bring a shitload of value because now startups would have a new source of relevant applications to tap in.
I'll bite: Isn't using scientific methods in HR similar to stock trading? I.e. you need to predict how well a given person would fit within a company; you can't really capture significant soft abilities like who-knows-whom, which might have significantly bigger impact on profitability of the project than any individual/technical contribution if you purely optimize for profit. You also need to take into account company's strategy, environment that is changing etc.
So I just tried to signup as an engineer and it says... "Unfortunately we're currently only able to work with people with legal status permitting employment in the US. We hope in the future to help set up visa sponsorships." So looks like it's only for US companies at the moment.
>We'll also be expanding to support engineers and companies in new locations.
This is the most exciting thing to me. I would love to use Triplebyte to try to find a position, but relocating is just not an option for me right now.
tway12|8 years ago
There were certain areas where the interviewer messed up in their evaluation, e.g. they felt I "was a little weak at hashmaps and API design", which is probably because they did not know what I was talking about when I described the details of advanced hashmap implementations. There seems to be a bias to discredit the interviewee if the interviewer lacks knowledge in an area.
Either way, despite getting great evaluations, I was matched with a total of 5 companies most of which were highly underwhelming early stage companies with minimal traction. Furthermore, I was matched with full stack companies despite begin evaluated as "weak in API design", which is perplexing. I was able to get higher quality offers in my own search and it seems like the TripleByte pipeline consists of many mediocre companies.
If I had known, I wouldn't have wasted my time with this service and invested more time in my job search.
dan7678|8 years ago
I had a common point about hashmaps -- the interviewer seemed to be at loss, and was asking weird questions that had little connection or relevance to the implementation path I'd chosen -- I politely explained the confusion and we swiftly moved on. They then marked that as a weak/"fuzzy" spot in their evaluation. I made sure to give my feedback about this to the person who shared the evaluation, but did not receive a response.
In the end, after making it to the company-matching phase, they found a whopping 1 company with <5 people, in an area I had clearly said I didn't plan on moving to. I don't know which part of the data-centric recruiting process got this so badly wrong.
Hoping that this process improves, but so far it hasn't lived up to expectations and I ended up finding multiple great matches on my own afterwards.
triplebytelol|8 years ago
I ran the TripleByte course once, and it was 100% not worth my time as a professional.
The "coding test" was criminally simple, but got me in the door quickly for an interview. I spent a number of hours building out projects with a paired interviewer, as well as answering questions. This part I enjoyed, it felt like a nice back and forth while building an interesting bit of software. It was like an open discussion, and getting to tap away on my laptop was such an enjoyable time.
Then came the technical questions. The interviewer asked if I knew anything about a specific Technology X. I'd list the tech here by name, but it's so specific I'm afraid of it being linked back to me. It's not something most engineers would run into.
I responded with "I have not worked with that, I've heard of it" as well as it never being listed on my resume or professional work. The interviewer went ahead and simplified it down for us to discuss, much like "Ok well it works like this, so let's chat abstractly". I went along with the discussion since I figured it would be fine to chat abstractly about a technology I never worked with.
The interview concluded, we parted ways and I thought things went very well.
The following days later I received an e-mail from Triplebyte. They praised my clean code and thought process, but specifically said my weakness in said Technology X, which I would like to call out again I never worked with professional nor had it listed as a skill or on my resume, was too much to consider me for the next round.
TripleByte literally evaluated, and discounted me, on not knowing an uncommon bit of technology. Just what the hell.
I was shocked at the levels of failures that occurred to reach this point. It was unfair to use that as any benchmark, and unfair to waste a day of my time doing that. It was a smack in the face to an industry vet like myself.
I tell all job seekers to stay far, far away from TripleByte for this reason. They're not really changing the game at all, but like to pretend they are the magic answer.
One footnote: I'm an engineer at one of the giants (Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, etc) who was and is way more qualified than anything TripleByte was or is pushing out.
hunter23|8 years ago
I'm not sure if the fault lies with Triplebyte or Mixpanel but it was an overall shitty experience. To be asked to take out your time to complete a quiz (which can be automatically scored with an algorithm since its multiple choice) and then get radio silence is terrible. Even if it was Mixpanel's fault, they should ensure their partners actually follow up with interviewers. For example, I know that Hired (another platform) actually will ding an employer that doesn't respond to applicants.
Anyways, Mixpanel & Triplebyte are probably on my "never apply to again ever" list.
pryelluw|8 years ago
ScottBurson|8 years ago
That reminded me of this classic HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12701625
The containing discussion is also relevant.
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
Harj|8 years ago
Interviewing and evaluating engineers is an area a lot of people feel passionately about and have strong opinions on. We're continually looking for ways to improve our process, if you've any thoughts or feedback please ping me - harj at triplebyte.
fro0116|8 years ago
At our company, we try to painstakingly craft our recruiting experience to make sure each candidate we interview has a good experience and ends up with a positive impression of our company regardless of whether or not we end up sending them an offer. At the end of the day, we're all human beings, each with something unique to bring to the table, even if that something might not be what we're looking for for a particular role at the moment.
Maybe past some scale we'll have to start changing our approach and start reducing candidates down to data points and "run experiments" on them like lab rats, like Google, et all, and these guys here seem to be so proud of themselves for doing, but I'd sooner quit than to stay a part of a company that does that.
ravenstine|8 years ago
alimhaq|8 years ago
gxs|8 years ago
It's hard enough internally to track someone's performance over the course of the year or two after they get hired, it would be even harder to do it if you are a recruiting company.
It's especially sensitive because employers are weary of sharing employee performance data to third parties because of the high risk of a lawsuit (there is clear precedent for these lawsuits.)
Once that data problem is bridged, it blows the problem right open for data to be explored and figure out what exactly predicts a top performer, in any field.
fludlight|8 years ago
I would like to test my hypothesis that grads from the top 10 cs schools as determined by US News et al. are generally good, but overvalued.
shreyanshd|8 years ago
forgotmysn|8 years ago
tsme1|8 years ago
blabla_blublu|8 years ago
xiphias|8 years ago
What I was interested in is whether the questions get harder, if I answer well, but they seemed random.
You could use logistic regression to estimate the level of an interviewer and adjust the questions to get to the same accuracy with less time (or to improve accuracy with the same number of questions/time)
lettergram|8 years ago
In a prior conversation on HN (link below), I brought up some aspect of my interview (interviewer late, argumentative, smug, etc.). Then the interviewer came on to HN and PUBLICLY SHARED PORTIONS OF MY INTERVIEW. Honestly, should have been fired on the spot, but nope.
To the interviewers credit, after I was the number one comment for most of the day he deleted that portion of the comment. I am grateful (looking back now) that was removed, however I think it speaks volumes.
The prior discussion is here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13830444
My two cents, is the idea is good - there is some room for improvement. What's scary is putting one company as a wall between you and the employer. I hope it never comes to pass where they control even 5% of the market. No one should be able to interview better than the company itself and employees shouldn't use a service which upon being declined blocks them from other companies. I don't believe that's the case (yet), so no qualms for the time being.
Given my experience, I hope they've improved and would happily change my view if I had reason to.
EDIT: Added prior interaction for reference
amorphid|8 years ago
mrnobody_67|8 years ago
That means the chances of being hired after doing a TripleByte interview is slightly under 1% if my back of the napkin calculation is accurate.
Harj|8 years ago
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
tudelo|8 years ago
dilatedmind|8 years ago
The first thing every company asked for was my resume, clearly they had not bought into the triplebyte process. Some seemed entirely unfamiliar with triplebyte.
Interviewing can be a sad process. Triplebyte gave me a taste for what things could be like, but didn't give me any advantage in the application process.
The companies triplebyte matched me with resulted in some of my worst interview experiences. Think disinterested ceos, hostile line of questioning, and a focus on my previous job experience vs things I would have liked to talk about (open source, personal projects)
dabockster|8 years ago
EDIT: Their website layout is a classic agency layout.
> header with giant "sign up" button
> "top tech companies" in big print as a selling point
> huge section with the most "famous" companies in their client pool
> free cost (you're the product they're selling, so they're not looking out for a best fit - they're looking to get paid for placing you)
> testimonials
> blogroll that reads like it was built solely for SEO
thecombjelly|8 years ago
Also, shouldn't we be concerned that giving one company's algorithms control over who gets hired will be too much power in too few hands? And algorithms are not neutral. The people that make the algorithms have biases and discriminations just like regular people do but at least if your company does its own hiring you can work on figuring out what those are and how to address them. How can you do that if you depend on some proprietary algorithm?
And what about disabilities? How does your algorithm handle those? Racial bias? So many unanswerable questions.
I have many issues with the way most companies interview but giving up that process to a proprietary algorithm seems like the worst solution. This is not news to be celebrated.
koopuluri|8 years ago
Couldn't algorithms reduce racial bias by focusing on evaluating candidates independent of their race, and other personal attributes?
dabockster|8 years ago
montrose|8 years ago
""The metric that companies care most about is what percentage of on-site interviews convert into hires, and the industry standard is 20 percent. Triplebyte’s placement rate is 40 percent," says Taggar."
speby|8 years ago
treis|8 years ago
haaen|8 years ago
https://www.ycombinator.com/people/
listic|8 years ago
koopuluri|8 years ago
The current screening process provides a low signal of competence, and so companies have to rely more on credentials (degrees, previous company brands) during screening, which means that a lot of skilled people still can't get their feet in the door at companies if they don’t “look right”, and companies fight over a restricted talent pool.
Lack of hiring data for smaller companies means they copy larger company’s interview processes, but there’s no strong forcing function to drive innovation in larger company’s hiring processes (i.e. their success could be despite a bad interviewing process - because they have a brand and offer a lot of perks, hence attracting the best talent, and so they aren’t in a “we have to fix hiring or we will die” mode).
This also really hurts startups - who aren’t in positions to take risks with hiring, and with a lack of good evaluations, have to rely on credentials, which restricts their pool, and makes them compete with the big cos for that talent.
Another important implication of fixing hiring is that it will introduce a powerful forcing function on higher education institutions. If students know that they can get jobs without having “traditional” credentials, but if they can pass, say TripleByte’s, or some other company’s, assessment which is more aligned with what’s required on the job, and is a signal that companies believe in, then students can use money that they would have spent on college to instead actually learn the skills that would be useful on the job.
This movement of money out of higher education, would fund a lot more experiments in learning and education.
I can’t stress how important I think this problem is to solve, and I’m glad companies like TripleByte, interviewing.io, are working on it. We need more companies, more approaches, more experiments in this space.
austincheney|8 years ago
This is largely just a software/technology problem. In all other professional industries there are means to validate a candidate's competency before they are allowed to interview for a position: licensing, required internships, legal certifications/authorizations, authorized relationships, and so forth.
Technology doesn't have this. The big difference is that in those other professions they are using the interview to actually interview the candidate, as in the person. In software and technology the entire interview is used to gauge basic competency and even then the trust relationship is inherently broken.
Contrary to what technologists will tell you the problem isn't the hiring process or low salaries (preposterous answer unless you live in the bay area). These are symptoms of a broken trust relationship. Hiring companies inherently do not trust the people they are interviewing as basically competent unless they have been told otherwise by somebody they know personally.
Hiring companies shouldn't trust a candidate is minimally competent, because there is no means to a standard baseline on which competency is measured. That is the primary problem. Solve for this problem and the resulting symptoms are easily addressed by the marketplace as a matter of economics.
---
The problem is very clear to see when you have two simultaneous careers: one as a software developer and a different one in an unrelated industry that has professionally addressed these concerns with required professional education and accreditation/licensing.
koopuluri|8 years ago
> there are means to validate a candidate's competency before they are allowed to interview for a position: licensing, required internships, legal certifications/authorizations, authorized relationships, and so forth.
The problems with credentials that you mention:
1. They are often weak signals of actual competence, and in the case that they are decent, there is still a lot of room for improvement through experimenting via a data driven process (current credentialing is, in many cases, outdated, and doesn't map to what actual work is like).
2. They are not accessible by everyone. This is problematic as the means to learning is becoming more accessible (through online education, etc.), but the credentialing is still restricted - since the institutions that hand them out haven't scaled credentialing. There is a lot of opportunity to provide signal for competence that scales... and measures skill that is actually used on the job (which is also changing as technology matures and penetrates other industries - we'll need a credentialing system that can adjust to those changes quickly).
In fact, I'll go as far as to say that this is a bigger problem in non-software industries. At least in software, there is a more objective way to measure a candidate's competence independent from the path they took to gain that competence. This means that people that might not have necessarily had a formal education / credentialing have a sliver of a chance of an opportunity to prove their skill. In other industries, if you don't have the credentialing, you have no shot.
echevil|8 years ago
Do you think requiring those credentials would benefit software industry as well? Is that enough for top companies to base their hiring decisions on?
dabockster|8 years ago
Is this why it's so hard to find work by applying through a job portal?
beachy|8 years ago
Its far easier to do online screening for software developers than it is for the softer skills - sales, marketing, etc.
abraham_s|8 years ago
taurath|8 years ago
treis|8 years ago
disease|8 years ago
yaacov|8 years ago
lettergram|8 years ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13830444
Further down the comment thread, the interviewer came on and shared information about my interview (essentially because I called them out for rude and smug - which IMO they were).
bhuga|8 years ago
Their process is fantastic. I can see them replacing first round interviews entirely at some companies if they can look for all the candidates companies need, not just the most senior.
I'm glad to hear they're expanding.
slfnflctd|8 years ago
Not nearly enough people in the hiring chain understand the importance of this.
Whether an employee can get along with co-workers is probably by far the most important metric in most jobs, yet it's mostly ignored because it's hard to test for. I guess companies hope they'll figure out if someone's a bad fit while they're still in a probationary period or something.
The most skilled worker in their field is useless if they can't cooperate and communicate effectively with others.
With the loyalty, willingness to learn and work ethic you can usually expect from an initially lower-skilled employee (along with lower wages/cost), a little training could turn them into a hugely valuable team member in fairly short order if a company makes an effort to ramp them up properly. Giving more of these people a shot will dramatically increase your odds of finding team members who work together well and become greater than the sum of their parts.
This idea of ignoring everyone who doesn't fit a ridiculously narrow criteria causes a whole lot of missed opportunities across the board. You end up hiring a bunch of elites-on-paper all trying to outmaneuver each other into the most possible money who will be gone in 2-3 years, while 'less attractive' candidates who would actually care about the work and tend to stick around get tossed in the garbage without even being seen.
joshribakoff|8 years ago
Alex3917|8 years ago
What does this mean exactly? E.g. does the test successfully identify the people who have the best portfolios of things they’ve built previously?
gwern|8 years ago
ammon|8 years ago
dabockster|8 years ago
Even with an algorithm doing the identification, any data produced is still going to be highly subjective (based on the "best portfolio" ideas of TripleByte and whoever worked on the algorithm).
baxtr|8 years ago
zitterbewegung|8 years ago
dmatteo|8 years ago
After the initial quiz, I had a ~2 hours interview with a human, which included a 1h "pair programming" challenge, random technical questions on my field, general CS questions and architecture (system design) type of questions.
Once I passed that step, my talent manager (the person who helps facilitating the discussion with the companies) told me IIRC that about 1 in 5 passes the human test.
Based on my skill set and preferences, the system "offered" some 30-something companies, and I chose to have an introductory call with ~10 of them. Each company has some background information, what they're good for (in TripleByte's opinion), their general size and their engineering size. Some companies (the bigger names) have additional steps before the on-site, like another pair-programming session or take-home exercises.
From those calls, 5 on-site interviews stemmed, and 4 of those resulted in an offer. TripleByte also helped arranging the on-site all in the same week, so if you're remote you don't have to fly back and forth all the time.
Top notch service, imo
yetanotherthro8|8 years ago
I am a swe with 2-3 years of experience, maybe four depending on how you count experience maybe, speak at lots of large conferences, contribute to open source, etc. I feel (and have data to back up) like Triplebyte sold me as a 5-7 years experience person, so only got interviews with companies looking for senior people. Really got along great with all companies and I have historically been a great judge of how my interviews have gone, but I think Triplebyte overselling me essentially caused me to waste a week of my life. Feel free to handwave and say I am blaming Triplebyte for my failures (of which I have many), but I do think I would have had 1-2 offers otherwise. Although to be fair, the 130-140k comp most companies mentioned would be a significant pay cut and may not have been do-able for me even if I had received an offer.
driverdan|8 years ago
They put me through the standard interview process along with additional discussion about the interviewer position.
Overall they're much better than most startups but have room for improvement.
The good:
They kept me well-informed throughout the process and set proper expectations. They were prompt with followups and stuck to the schedule they set. My interviewers were knowledgable, clearly software engineers.
The bad:
Too much focus on algos and CS fundamentals, not enough on higher level concepts and what makes someone a good fit for an available position.
I understand it's really hard to have a generic evaluation that covers multiple potential roles. That said, I believe that these questions do not select for good employees for most roles. They are biased to select for recent college grads and people who are willing to study before interviewing.
For example, they asked me about bloom filters. 95%+ of startup software jobs will never have to deal with bloom filters. Why would you ask about them? Ask something that will actually be encountered on the job.
To add a little background I was responsible for our hiring process in my last position, including interviewing, so I'm a bit opinionated about this.
aeling|8 years ago
gossipundercut|8 years ago
After the initial test, there is a fairly long phone/remote desktop interview that consists of:
* Writing code (on your actual machine with the tools and language of your choice!) to solve a simple problem.
* Debugging (a smallish program with 5 failed unit tests)
* General knowledge questions (databases, web (both html and http), data-structures algorithms)
The phone interview then ended with them giving you a couple of tips on answering the non-technical interview topics that a lot of engineers flub (why do you want to work here, when can you start, compensation).
The next day I got a list of over a dozen positions with the recommendation that I pick at least 5 to move on to phone screening.
The phone screenings went well (3 of them were just varients of "all the candidatese triplebyte has sent us were great, so we just want to talk about our company"). This was also my first hint that compensation would be an issue; one company was immediately ruled out because they were early stage and I can't pay a mortgage with equity.
Then triplebyte scheduled the on-sites all in the same week so that I wouldn't have to go back-and-forth to the bay area.
Ultimately Apple was the only company on my list paying enough to get me to relocate, and they passed on me.
tylerhou|8 years ago
bradleyjg|8 years ago
teirce|8 years ago
Overall I don't think it was a good experience for me.
The interview was pleasant but long. Since they are more of a recruiting firm than anything, they are able to ask questions in a way that an organization looking to hire won't. It allows the candidate to be more candid and detailed with their knowledge and expectations. I thought it went well enough but I did not proceed to the company matching phase.
It is _very_ clear that they are looking for a specific type of developer - a type which I reckon probably doesn't need Triplybyte in the first place. I am not a web/rails/whatever developer, nor am I a senior engineer with very niche skillsets like low-level systems, etc.
The feedback I got was mostly positive, but contradicted itself in odd ways (pro: "we like your DB skills" / con: "work more with DBs") and really just translated to "you aren't marketable to startups and don't have the pedigree / experience needed to throw at our larger clients."
I suppose if you have an popular or incredibly niche skillset that is in-demand, but are having trouble getting the attention of companies for whatever reason (it happens), TripleByte is a decent shot. But if you have more general experience / a skill-set that
Ultimately they are a business and they have to operate this way, so I understand being turned down. I was, however, disappointed that I was 'let down' in a way by the vision I was pitched of what TripleByte claims to do / be.
ironjunkie|8 years ago
cheez|8 years ago
zenophobia|8 years ago
ummonk|8 years ago
I think Triplebyte was really useful for me because I didn't have a CS degree and didn't have any work history directly in tech, so I couldn't get through resume screens via direct applications and didn't really know many people who could refer me. So Triplebyte had high value in getting me actual the actual technical interviews. I'm not sure how valuable it would be for others who don't have trouble with this, but given the minimal time investment (a few hours for phone interview), it's probably worth a shot regardless.
aerodog|8 years ago
pankajdoharey|8 years ago
crabasa|8 years ago
Does anyone think that social proof could work here? If 15 peers endorse Sally for React Native and those 15 people are likewise found to be credible, could such a network effect be more valuable than a coding test?
duncanawoods|8 years ago
taurath|8 years ago
I'd consider recommendations from CTOs, former Senior or Principle engineers to be the #1 indication that the person can do what they say they can do. Verify a bit more, but honestly the college level micro-optimization whiteboard-only BS questions are mainly only useful for checking new grads.
lunchbreak|8 years ago
nightsd01|8 years ago
I got to interview with some pretty exciting/interesting companies.
The only problem with Triplebyte, in my opinion, is that I don’t think they track job success AFTER the hire. I imagine this is probably a problem they’re working on. But it’s hard to build a successful recruiting company if you don’t know what happens to the employees once they actually get hired.
mindhash|8 years ago
The problem with raising the bar for interviewing engineers is the work that they end up doing isn't moving at same pace. With more frameworks, better languages and open source building stuff is getting easier
wheresvic1|8 years ago
I think hiring is a difficult process because we need to work with others and people are different in general.
I have personally worked with people who started programming just because they were interested in it - they had no knowledge of algorithmic complexity but they were very open-minded, had a great perspective on the domain and were a pleasure to work with.
This is very anecdotal of course but I sincerely hope that they would have been able to make it past the online quiz...
(If you're thinking they should be smart enough to be able to game the quiz, then my question would be - why not just screen everyone in person then? Of course, that's not scalable and not worth the 50 million then...)
quadcore|8 years ago
Thing is, a startup cant do like amazon and actually dive into every random applicant. It's too big of a work. So, a startup is limited and can only use recommendations in order to even think about interviewing someone.
Now, what if a company would do the grunt work and select a few of those random applicants and submit them to the companies. That would bring a shitload of value because now startups would have a new source of relevant applications to tap in.
I think triplebyte is actually a good investment.
bitL|8 years ago
dsacco|8 years ago
As it happens, stock trading is a bad example of something scientific methods do not improve :)
aeling|8 years ago
pmuk|8 years ago
pmuk|8 years ago
thingsilearned|8 years ago
cvittal|8 years ago
This is the most exciting thing to me. I would love to use Triplebyte to try to find a position, but relocating is just not an option for me right now.
ChrisDiNicolas|8 years ago
lnnaie|8 years ago
jasonwilk|8 years ago
farnsworthy|8 years ago
wetpaws|8 years ago
[deleted]
dexterdog|8 years ago
rkho|8 years ago
jasonmaydie|8 years ago
[deleted]
pankajdoharey|8 years ago
Marissa = Disaster. I hope she doesnt overemphasize her position as an investor and again runs an enterprise into the ground.
a13n|8 years ago