[caffeine]

Your point in the article about gaining bargaining power for engineers by making the hiring process an iterated game instead of one-shot is a good insight.

But the transparency you need to extract is mainly financial, that’s the big asymmetry. I think people care more about money than they say they do, and less about release cadence or test coverage or whatever than they say they do.

So triplebyte should be called “get me a raise.com”. I tell you what I’m making, smash all your tests, and you find me somebody who wants to offer me e.g $50k more or $100k more, and that WILL be the offer I get. And if the company reneges on that offer then it’s flagged to warn others, and if they do well by their employees they are rewarded as well.

[rachofsunshine]

This was our original theory when we started doing user research, and we were surprised at the degree to which it didn't pan out. We assumed (in line with how these things usually go) that engineer interest in filters would follow some sort of very lopsided power law, where a few filters dominated among almost all engineers. But in practice, everyone wanted something different: some people were excited by salary, some by tech stack, some by pair programming, etc. One guy went on for like fifteen minutes about how much he hated open office plans.

That said, the idea of "we will offer X to anyone with Y quiz scores" as a showing a company can make is pretty cool, and is definitely in a "company makes public conditional guarantees" space that we're interested in exploring.

[clavigne]

> One guy went on for like fifteen minutes about how much he hated open office plans.

Does this guy have a patreon?