[pradeep_m]

Hired, Vettery and other recruiting websites typically connect candidates to companies based on almost little to no vetting (Their vetting is based on your resume: essentially pedigree).

On HiDimensional, as a candidate, you interview with a senior engineer in your field and based on what you are strongest at, you get a personal referral from that engineer to the companies we work with. The engineer fills out an evaluation highlighting your strengths and we match you with the companies looking for your strengths.

Also, you get very clear feedback about what you are good at and what you can improve on from the senior engineers directly. For example, if you are an ML engineer, do you believe it'd be useful to interview with and get a direct referral from the former Head of ML at Quora to all startups?

The end goal is the same, but this approach yields a better experience for all parties.

[vthallam]

So then you are like Triplebyte?

Also, this will definitely work great until you scale and when you are out of qualified engineering leaders who can help you vet candidates. How do you plan to manage that?

[pradeep_m]

Yes, I'd agree they are a closer comparable. Our primary difference is that our interview process is personalized to each individual candidate because we match candidates to an independent interviewer relevant to their domain and field of interest. We don't specify what the interviewer should ask. Instead our direction to them is: "We matched this candidate to you because they expressed these skills/interests. Try to identify where their strengths are and if you would recommend them for a role in your specialty."

The evaluations our interviewers write as a result gives us a lot of nuance and evidence to match candidates with the best roles for them.

The fact that the interviewers are independent is also another differentiator. This gives candidates an opportunity to make a valuable connection, and we expect interviewers to take ~10-15 min at the end to share feedback on the candidate's performance, how they can improve, and answer any questions / share personalized advice. We have heard many frustrated accounts from our candidates about receiving rejections with no feedback and how this is one of their most valued benefits of our approach.

On the scaling point - it's a very good question. We are collecting a lot of data about each interviewer and specifically their skill at evaluating skill (i.e., how predictive is their evaluation). So over time, we will be able to understand interviewer strength and what they are qualified to evaluate, and seniority of the interviewer becomes less important.

[reiinakano]

Sure, but without seniority of the interviewer, would his/her reference carry as much weight?

Instead of banking on an interviewer's reputation, you would in essence be asking companies to trust your ability "to understand interviewer strength and what they are qualified to evaluate". Not so sure how well that'll work...

[pradeep_m]

Fair question. We collect data about every interviewer (at a very granular level to understand what skills they are good at evaluating and how predictive they are).

Also, we provide interviewing history data as part of the evaluation. For example, if you knew the last 10 candidates a particular interviewer has endorsed have ended up at companies like Airbnb, Stripe, Google, Facebook, etc, would the interviewer's reputation still be in question?