from Hacker News

Triplebyte Engineer Genome Project

by kwi on 5/4/16, 5:36 PM with 38 comments

  • by Harj on 5/4/16, 6:07 PM

    When we started Triplebyte, we'd thought there would be pretty much a straight line from being a bad to great programmer and we'd just have to figure out where to put the cut off when deciding whether to work with an engineer. The biggest surprise has been just how much disagreement there is amongst companies on what a "great engineer" actually means.

    That's when we realized we were actually working on a mapping problem and the first step was figuring out a universal set of criteria that all companies care about. Then if we could assign the right weight for each attribute to specific companies, we could route engineers only to companies they'll be a strong technical fit for.

    It'd be great to get thoughts on the criteria we chose and experiences from engineers who have done a lot of technical interviewing,

  • by pfarnsworth on 5/4/16, 6:14 PM

    I still don't understand why I would want to go through the hassle of doing an onsite interview with TripleByte only to have to go through further onsite interviews at the hiring companies?

    If TripleByte's onsite interview allowed me to skip the onsite at the hiring company, then I'd be all for it, but it is like it's just a layer of friction.

    For the record, I've had zero problems applying to companies by either emailing them or getting contacted by them via LinkedIn, email, etc. I just don't understand what benefit they bring at this moment. Maybe if the job market tightens and they were exclusive providers for companies, then sure, but all the SV companies have teams of recruiters emailing people all day long. As a hiring candidate there's no reason why I would want to go through their onsite.

  • by minimaxir on 5/4/16, 6:44 PM

    While hiring is indeed a big problem that can be addressed with a data-driven approach, I'm not sure the approach of "we have data, just trust us" is fair to all parties.

    The naming of Engineering Genome Project is styled after Pandora's Music Genome Project. The difference is that Pandora uses data to provide relevant and immediately verifiable results by the user, such as music along the same genre and artist. In contrast, an Engineering Genome Project uses criteria such as "applied problem solving" and "professional code" that is impossible for a user to interpret intuitively.

  • by FabioFleitas on 5/4/16, 5:50 PM

  • by llovan on 5/4/16, 6:21 PM

    For a second I thought they were going to start sequencing genomes of engineers and start screening via DNA...

  • by ececconi on 5/4/16, 8:25 PM

    I think this writeup is a tad lengthy. It's not until the fifth paragraph that I understand what's even going on

    >Intelligent matching with software is how hiring should work. Failed technical interviews are a big loss for both sides. They cost companies their most valuable resource, engineering time. Applicants lose time they could have spent interviewing with another company that would have been a better fit.

    I feel like that should have been the headline for this. For a company that is meant to match people to companies, I think their external communication should be excellent not just good. How can I trust that this company will communicate my strengths and weaknesses in a way other people can understand if it's difficult for me to follow one of their flagship blog posts?

  • by impish19 on 5/4/16, 9:03 PM

    Whenever someone decides to hire someone, all of their criteria are heavily biased towards what kind of skills the candidates posses.

    I wonder if someone can come up with a reasonably accurate way to determine how well or easily can a candidate acquire particular skills.

    I realize this line of thought might not be popular for most startups who would want someone to get going as soon as they start. But if you're having a tough time hiring a Machine Learning engineer and you get applications from a bunch of smart folks who want to gain experience in Machine Learning, would it be a good idea to give them a shot?

    The traditional 'puzzle solving' in interviews was probably geared in this direction, but I'm wondering if there are better ways to gauge this.

  • by Joof on 5/5/16, 12:02 AM

    I understand why many people are skeptical, but you guys are doing something new in a space that has long been ignored. Keep up the good work!

  • by code3434 on 5/5/16, 12:19 AM

    I got rejected by Triplebyte and then hired by Google a while later. I prepared much more for the Google interview though, so I don't know if Triplebyte was at fault.

  • by searine on 5/4/16, 8:22 PM

    I have to say, my interest was piqued by your hiring strategy.

    It's a shame it's limited to just engineers. I've been looking for a recruiter company like this for data science.

  • by nzoschke on 5/4/16, 7:11 PM

    Very interesting. How do I know what I value as an employer?

    Edit to my own question....

    The 7 genome dimensions looks really reasonable. But hypothetically thinking I still want it all!

  • by jackalb1 on 5/4/16, 11:07 PM

    Interesting approach. How do you plan to scale this since you also need data points from the actual interviews done by companies?

  • by frsandstone on 5/4/16, 10:11 PM

    How does one assess communication skill without humans? A leap forward in NLP?