[gnicholas]

It's the fee, which is a percentage of the employee's salary. That's much more than the listing fee on Indeed, likely by orders of magnitude.

There's also the downside that some scummy person is representing themselves as being affiliated with you, when they're not. So if they do scummy things to the candidate (which they likely would, given what they're doing to you), then you are painted in a bad light. Think of situations that HNers complain about here, and then imagine that it's your company being (wrongfully) dragged for having lousy interviewing practices.

[bertil]

The fee is the most common issue cited by employers.

I generally respond (as a candidate) to get a sense of the problem. I can assure you that bad representation is the biggest problem. It’s not uncommon for recruiters to say something really problematic (bluntly racist or sexist) or impose excessive interview steps to filter candidates, without knowledge of the industry. I often know the hiring manager well enough to give feedback and they are generally horrified.

[eek2121]

As if companies don't do that on their own.

I'm actively interviewing for new positions, and the amount of stuff that startups (most out of Silicon Valley) are doing is absolute batshit. From 2-hour tech screens to 19-hour unpaid interviews WORKING ON THEIR OWN CODE BASE, I will not be surprised when the DoL does a crackdown on the interview process. I have been in the software development industry for decades. If you can't tell if a candidate qualifies after 45-90 (tops!) minutes of interviews, you may want to look internally for problems. All they are really doing is rejecting a ton of super smart developers, many who may have disabilities.

Oh, and then there was that one company who told me I had no knowledge of a language and framework I am actively contributing to, and have built robust, scalable enterprise apps out of. "We are looking for experts of <language x> and also <framework y> and <framework z>." That was literally the message they sent me. They did NOT know about my contributions because my dumb ass tries not to show off stuff like that when looking for employment as I want to be weighed on my ability to write awesome code and not weighed on a popularity contest.

[bruce511]

>> my dumb ass tries not to show off stuff like that when looking for employment as I want to be weighed on my ability to write awesome code and not weighed on a popularity contest.

I know you likely learned from this, but it's worth repeating especially for people who don't often go looking for jobs.

Getting hired is a sales process. You are the product. It doesn't really matter what you can do - that's probably not what you are selling to the interviewer.

What you are selling is the fact that _you_ (and you alone) are the best choice for the position. That means a combination of skill set and personality.

So specifically, being "popular", or "known", or "admired" in the tech community is a feature, one which is very valuable to potential employers. Being popular means you're (probably) not a dick, and that's worth knowing.

I say this with respect, but there were likely a bunch of folk they interviewed who can write code just as awesome as yours (at least in their eyes). I don't mean that to demean you, but clearly a) it's impossible to determine code awesomeness in an interview - it takes months for awesome code to even surface - and b) there are a _lot_ of people out there writing awesome code.

In Western culture it is considered polite to be modest, but being modest in an interview, or on a CV is a bug, not a feature. You need to sell, and sell hard, every possible accomplishment - without being a dick.

Writing awesome code is not enough. Fitting in with the team (ie demonstrating social skills), having deep knowledge of some framework (enough to contribute, and have those contributions accepted), publishing or presenting at conferences (ability to communicate and articulate), are all huge box ticks in the recruiting process.

Don't. Be. Shy.