zlacker

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+(OP)
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+Z2
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.

>>averev+Z2
I don't think the proposition (for employers) is really to be able to skip interviews altogether, but to find "diamonds in the rough", candidates who may have an exceptional grasp of material that might not be suggested by their resume or years of experience or whatever.

If you can hire someone skilled, but who other companies might overlook, that's a huge benefit to your team.

Triplebyte is really just the first screen, and the importance each company wants to put on the signal is up to them.