zlacker

>>terafl+(OP)
I totally forgot about Triplebyte. Are they even relevant still? I remember back when it seemed like their ads were appearing everywhere and was a bit worried they were going to be the new way of hiring engineering talent. Seems like there's been nothing but crickets chirping for the last few years.

Why? My experience with them was pretty bad. I took their assessment for web development, I think I even did an assignment, and got put on a video call with someone from Triplebyte. He never cracked a smile. Suddenly I got asked a bunch of CS questions that really were not very relevant to web development, some of which were entirely inappropriate like sorting a binary search tree. I even told the guy that I thought I was getting those questions wrong and he just scowled and said "well you just don't know when you're going to use this stuff." "My point exactly," I thought.

Ultimately I got rejected.

The whole idea that you can boil down a candidate to some coding challenges and a video quiz is bad. I do like the idea of streamlining the hiring process for developers, but there's more to it than knowing a bunch of stuff, because that can be gamed. And quizzing me on irrelevant material was a bad move. A firm like Triplebyte won't be as good at interviewing a candidate as the employer itself, and may even keep perfectly qualified candidates out of view from all employers affiliated with them.

>>ravens+l8
To be fair, I think a shared interview system would be great. Then companies don’t have to devote time and effort into their own interview process, which turns out to be Leetcode and full of false positives / negatives anyways.

But it needs to be:

- In-depth. Not just a single exam or interview. You need to really know the employee’s strengths and weaknesses

- Detailed. You can’t just give someone pass / fail or a single score. Not only is it mean, but you end up getting misaligned candidates anyways, because some people are really bad at some aspects of software but good at others. In fact maybe the process should ditch scores entirely and just show the recruiters the actual employee interviews, and what he/she has and has not accomplished.

- Changing over time. Not a short period of time. But like, if I take the assessment, 6 months later I can take a smaller assessment and it will update my scores and log my progress.

Triplebyte is not 1 or 2. Idk but I think it’s 3 and you can retake the quiz. But then it’s only telling employees if you’re basically competent for some arbitrary statistic, which doesn’t even tell if you’re basically competent at the company.

I think it would be nice if i could take one thorough interview instead of several less-thorough company-specific interviews, but that’s not Triplebyte.

>>armcha+8r
Idk, as a company I would still want to run my interview, and candidates would probably hate the double interview. Pre interview would also get stale fast.

Companies wouldn't trust a third party to run binding technical assessment for them, and quality devs would probably avoid places that hire without having someone from the destination team show up

I think the opposite would be more beneficial: a light check to validate work claims and some high level foundational question about code just to make sure one has basic proficiency in what he claims he has

Then companies would need lot less hr pre-screening and could focus in technology and culture matching

>>averev+7u
I'm very sure that a consortium of FANG type companies could get together and design a shared interview for generic technical skills, and then run normal interviews for candidates that pass that step. And when I say normal interviews, I mean the stuff that an individual company should want to do, such as behavioral, talking about past projects, etc. Making candidates do leetcode type sessions at every place they apply is a waste of time for both candidates and companies.