zlacker

>>winsto+(OP)
This is horrible, what a breach of trust. I used TB to stealthily interview for jobs, had a good experience. Recommended them to others. Now I see that if I hadn't seen this post, I wouldn't have known about this and those details would have been public, which had the potential to seriously undermine me at my current position. I'll opt out tomorrow, but according to others it sounds like the visibility link was somewhat hidden. At least with this they're well on the way to becoming the next LinkedIn, at least by their practices. What a dark pattern.

>>gansty+u5
It looks like emailing candidate.support@triplebyte.com is the only way to delete your account.

>>grizzl+Wf
> candidate.support@triplebyte.com

Did they purposefully go out of the way to make this email address unguessable/non-standard/multi-word

>>mkagen+8j
support@triplebyte.com is probably for clients.

Source: Candidate, has a very specific marketing meaning, of you being the product.

>>ORioN6+Rv
There’s a lot of things to dislike about triplebyte’s behaviour here, but this particular criticism isn’t fair.

I’ve worked at 3 different companies in the hiring space across two continents and “candidate” is the internal term they all ended up using internally for people seeking jobs. “Applicant” is too vague and “job seeker” is long and hard to scan (and it’s too similar at a glance to “job”, which is also not often used).

If “candidate” has bad connotations for you, I’d love to hear a better suggestion. But I still haven’t seen a more appropriate name for my database table.

Company / candidate / role / resume / profile / interview / offer. These are the terms almost everyone uses.

>>joseph+pA
I don't think the parent comment was complaining about the nomenclature. I interpreted it as pointing out that in any hiring activity, the candidate/applicant/whatever is the product. A company pays a recruiting service in exchange for hiring a candidate.

(Of course, the candidate also receives value because presumably they are looking for a job and get one in this transaction. But the whole "you are the product" trope always ignores the fact that the "product" person is receiving value in the transaction).