[ammon]

This is a perfect example of why we're making these changes (and the problem that came from us being a gatekeeper). There are lots of different ways to show skill. We don't want to be in the position of deciding who "deserves" a job.

[ALittleLight]

Isn't that what the core value of TripleByte was though? "This person deserves a job." Then some company says "Okay".

[rachofsunshine]

In the case of people who needed us to vouch that they deserved a job, yeah. But:

- In borderline cases, we didn't want to risk our credibility and companies didn't want to skip tech screens. So competent-but-not-amazing engineers got shut out.

- Our quiz is not perfect, so engineers who didn't fit what we were quizzing got shut out.

- Not everyone needs us to vouch for them. Companies (reasonably) trust that someone with a degree from a top school and years of prestigious experiences can probably do fizzbuzz, and demanding that they prove it was a barrier to them using Triplebyte.

We think it's better to have more granular ability for companies and engineers to decide what mattes to them. A prestigious company can say "we'll only talk to people who took the quiz and got a top score" (and that score is us saying "this person deserves a job"). One that desperately needs the headcount can talk to the borderline cases or decide they don't want to put the extra barrier of a quiz in the way.

Like most markets, we think the hiring market on our platform works best when it's able to respond to local conditions.

[thaumasiotes]

> (and that score is us saying "this person deserves a job")

If you're not willing to refer people to companies based on their score, how can you interpret the score as you saying "this person deserves a job"?

[rachofsunshine]

The difference is in the bar for forcing companies to set aside parts of their screening process. To get them to do that - as we needed to under our old model, because we didn't have a notion of "recommended but without the requirement to skip tech screens" - we needed to be making very strong recommendations.

[thaumasiotes]

I'm a little bemused at the notion of evaluating someone "strong tech skills, but can't pass an interview" and determining that the appropriate recommendation is "talk to this guy, but -- unlike with most of our candidates -- don't skip the tech screens". The recommendation seems like the opposite of the diagnosis.

How does the new ability to make that recommendation address the original problem?

[ianwalter]

Because getting some leads with less certainty is better than getting no leads with higher certainty in a tight market? Wasn't this addressed in the post?

[ammon]

I'd say that main value was that we opened doors for people (got them opportunities they would not have been considered for without us). I don't think what we need to be gatekeepers to do this. Yes, not everyone can succeed (get a job at at top company). But we can help everyone show their skills in the way that's best for them. We can fight ghosting and lying and create a less hostile process. We're keeping our quiz (so that people who do well on tests can get opportunities that way), and also creating a job search process for people who do not want to do a quiz (the majority of engineers). The idea is that they will show their skills other ways (past experience, side projects, open source work). By us not being a gatekeeper we open these other paths.