That's when we realized we were actually working on a mapping problem and the first step was figuring out a universal set of criteria that all companies care about. Then if we could assign the right weight for each attribute to specific companies, we could route engineers only to companies they'll be a strong technical fit for.
It'd be great to get thoughts on the criteria we chose and experiences from engineers who have done a lot of technical interviewing,
Why that and not something more general which might encompass other kinds of domain-specific knowledge? There are a lot of companies on your list which seem like they might care more about other skills that don't really fit anywhere else. (Experience working with databases for example, for one of the 7 or so database companies.)
If TripleByte's onsite interview allowed me to skip the onsite at the hiring company, then I'd be all for it, but it is like it's just a layer of friction.
For the record, I've had zero problems applying to companies by either emailing them or getting contacted by them via LinkedIn, email, etc. I just don't understand what benefit they bring at this moment. Maybe if the job market tightens and they were exclusive providers for companies, then sure, but all the SV companies have teams of recruiters emailing people all day long. As a hiring candidate there's no reason why I would want to go through their onsite.
We do also reduce the total amount of time engineers have to spend in technical interviews. Triplebyte candidates skip the technical phone screens, usually an hour per company at least. If you're speaking with at least 3 companies (which everyone working with us is), you've already saved time as our technical interview is 2.5 hours.
Happy to talk more about this, harj AT triplebyte.
Until you can get the hiring companies to eliminate their onsite interviews and only rely on you to test candidates programming abilities, then there really is no advantage to going through TripleByte. There are only disadvantages.
If I have a bad day and mess up the TripleByte interview, then I'm automatically excluded from a bunch of top companies through TripleByte. But if I apply to each company individually, I get the same chance to perform and a poor performance won't affect the others.
However, if I do well, the only thing I get after doing a TripleByte onsite is to skip is a 1 hr phone screen, which, if I'm good I'll be able to pass anyway. And also I'm still relying on you to give me access to the companies which may or may not be the ones I want.
There just doesn't seem to be any practical advantage to using TripleByte over any other recruiter. I'd in fact skip TripleByte because it requires me to do a lengthy onsite which would require me to take a day off (presumably you don't do this on weekends) on top of the onsites from other companies. And the advantage of skipping phone screens doesn't seem worth it.
The naming of Engineering Genome Project is styled after Pandora's Music Genome Project. The difference is that Pandora uses data to provide relevant and immediately verifiable results by the user, such as music along the same genre and artist. In contrast, an Engineering Genome Project uses criteria such as "applied problem solving" and "professional code" that is impossible for a user to interpret intuitively.
The categories that you mention (applied problem solving and professional code) really are important. Companies differ widely in how much care about those two things (solving problems in the interview effectively vs. showing clean, well-structured code and good testing process). When an effective but iterative (and sometimes sloppy) programmer interviews at a company that values process highly, the result is wasted time and pain for everyone.
>Intelligent matching with software is how hiring should work. Failed technical interviews are a big loss for both sides. They cost companies their most valuable resource, engineering time. Applicants lose time they could have spent interviewing with another company that would have been a better fit.
I feel like that should have been the headline for this. For a company that is meant to match people to companies, I think their external communication should be excellent not just good. How can I trust that this company will communicate my strengths and weaknesses in a way other people can understand if it's difficult for me to follow one of their flagship blog posts?
I wonder if someone can come up with a reasonably accurate way to determine how well or easily can a candidate acquire particular skills.
I realize this line of thought might not be popular for most startups who would want someone to get going as soon as they start. But if you're having a tough time hiring a Machine Learning engineer and you get applications from a bunch of smart folks who want to gain experience in Machine Learning, would it be a good idea to give them a shot?
The traditional 'puzzle solving' in interviews was probably geared in this direction, but I'm wondering if there are better ways to gauge this.
More specifically, has any company ever been content with the delta in experience/knowledge a candidate might have gained between interviews, enough to hire them? This as opposed to continuing to evaluate the candidate against an absolute benchmark.
Because if not, then this sort of evaluation doesn't really help, does it?
This is known as an "IQ test".
It's a shame it's limited to just engineers. I've been looking for a recruiter company like this for data science.
Edit to my own question....
The 7 genome dimensions looks really reasonable. But hypothetically thinking I still want it all!
