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
> "The whole idea that you can boil down a candidate to some coding challenges and a video quiz is bad."

yes, there are too many variables between the candidate, job, company, and work environment to determine long-term fit via a test, especially for "creative" jobs. the more regimented the job (e.g., fast food cook), the lower the variability, but it's still significant. plus, such tests only evaluate technical skills, not the more important non-technical ones (like punctuality, integrity, steadfastness, etc.--note that these are a function of the involved parties and the relationship between them, not just the candidate).

but also, the underlying problem of hiring is not one of trying to get the best fit, but of trying to avoid the pain of firing. that's the thing that needs to be reframed/solved, but that's a much harder and a much less technical problem (alternatively put, technical tests are marginal at best).

>>clairi+Xc
Can a quiz or trivia determine how good a person is at the most crucial aspect of the job: discovering what needs done?

I spend weeks drumming up two or three days worth of coding work. The coding aspect is basically manual labor and pedantic arguments with other devs.

>>datavi+ZF
I felt that the live interview was fairly ok at that. A staff engineer watched you code and debug stuff, asked you how you would do XYZ, etc. This took a few hours so must have cost the company $100s in engineering time. I can see why they don't do it any more. There's not much more they can do in a compressed time frame. Lately a bunch of companies want you to do unpaid multi-day take-home assignments before they even talk to you, but that is nuts. An alternative could be a paid brief engagement, like an NBA 10-day contract. I've done some things like that, which worked ok.