[tbird24]

Here's the thing, and I'm open to thoughts here. But I've found that candidate A can be a great fit for company B, but a terrible fit for company C. I think a match is way more subjective than folks tend to give it credit for, and a rating system (like Uber) makes it seem more objective than it actually is. It works for things like Uber, where you can have hundreds of ratings very quickly, and so it converges on a natural truth. But with fractional clients, I think the N is so small that there's might just be too much noise.

Thoughts?

[volkk]

Agree with this. It's kind of like dating. No such thing as a 4.5/5 human since it's way too subjective and the enumeration of hard skills/soft skills is too high. Sometimes a fit can be an unspoken thing. You'll probably end up wasting a ton of time trying to figure out this magical algo and likely end up nowhere with it. Just my 2c

[protocolture]

Hot take: I find that a lot of the businesses that are a good fit for terrible staff, have terrible business practices. It would probably be beneficial for a lot of absolutely garbage clients to consider hiring better people to fix their processes and corporate culture, rather than just picking the person they like.

[volkk]

> a good fit for terrible staff, have terrible business practices

I think generally the people that end up choosing terrible staff that perpetuate terrible business practices are probably pretty terrible executives/founders themselves. Talent generally attracts talent in some way. There's really almost no situations where someone really fantastic would even _want_ to work for a bad company barring huge pay, or a rare moment of desperation due to life circumstances

[protocolture]

Agreed but thats why a good rating system goes both ways.