I think this is missing a critical step - the candidate needs a way to see the result. I don't necessarily trust a random recruiter to be honest when they tell me "Oh yeah 100% it said we're compatible." Could you make a link that the candidate can use to verify the outcome? Alternatively, when I the candidate visit the link that I sent the recruiter (after they submit) it could just tell me (and them, if they revisit) the result.
I think this makes sense. My initial assumption was that the recruiter has no incentives to mislead the candidate, but now I can think of some scenarios where there are incentives to do so.
Beyond that, even if the candidate kinda trusts the recruiter, I think it would be psychologically comfortable for the candidate to have some "official" confirmation.
Great ideia !
Just two suggestion.
Why not try interval approach, the candidate could enter an interval and recruiter another interval, than just check if they intersect.
Technically, why not encode the information on the URL avoiding the database ? Keeping the information in some database could bring lot's of headaches :-)
a) Why would the interval approach be better? It's the same thing as checking if candidate min > recruiter max but with some extra unnecessary information?
b) The information cannot be in the URL because the main point of the tool is to hide that information. :)
I may not understand. I put in a salary, $5 annual gross, and created a link. I tried the link and was presented with a prompt to enter a number. I entered $3 and got a message, incompatible (or something like that). And I couldn’t try any other numbers.
This doesn’t seem very productive way to negotiate with a potential employer.
It’s really not intended for negotiations, it’s intended to determine if negotiation is possible. Candidate puts in their minimum, recruiter puts in their max, if max > min then negotiation is possible.
If the recruiter was able to make multiple submissions they could find the candidates minimum expectation exactly.