Show HN: Peer to Peer Recruiting?(gethigher.io) |
Show HN: Peer to Peer Recruiting?(gethigher.io) |
"By paying £500 now to endorse Paul, you will receive £1000 if Paul is hired and passes probation.
If Paul is hired and fails probation, your payment of £500 will be donated to charity.
If Paul is not hired then your payment of £500 will be refunded."
There are interactive demo pages https://gethigher.io/endorse/demo https://gethigher.io/dashboard/demo linked on the homepage, that qualifies for the "HN users can try it out" (https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html) even though the service isn't launched yet.
Doesn't this perpetuate the lack of diversity in the job market? Whenever I hire I'll ask anyone I know that's worked in the same place if they have an opinion on them - but won't use a lack of one to not bring in for an interview.
AD: The fact that Paul is taking on all the risk, in effect Paul has made a self-endorsement via proxy... Paul can already self-endorse it's a valid signal of confidence that they feel they can do the job.
This feels like it's flirting with "pay to apply", which is an absolutely reliable sign of a scam and is rightfully illegal in many countries.
IE. What is ATS? why do I want to see demo immediately?
It's trivial to get a flood of inadequate resumes and incompetent applicants.
So how does this avoid that problem in concrete market differentiated ways without using platitudes and self congratulatory language?
Is it the "Endorsement flow"? Why is it buried, sandwiched between a bunch of what Steve Krug called "happy talk" over 20 years ago?
If you don’t know it, now you do.
Maybe 101 level jargon for you, but not everyone; especially who are not familiar with this particular domain.
We invented the concept of a confidence curation market as a spin off from content creation markets, the system wide effect is those who rise to the top have the most network confidence in passing probation.
We also wanted to bring the human element back into recruiting, giving control back to the candidates to indicate their keenness and applicability for a role whilst staying informed (it's amazing how many recruiting processes right now DON'T update you), candidates can self-endorse or reach out to their network for endorsements.
It's a big idea with lots of nuances and we've just launched our MVP, we're happy to answer any questions!
[1] https://www.hbs.edu/managing-the-future-of-work/Documents/re...
If they quit in two days, do I lose my money? As I know a great candidate who has done that because he was mislead (literal Java developer hired to do JavaScript kind of thing).
How about if they are just let go in a downsizing and not really fired for performance?
But otherwise this is a great idea.
My thoughts are :
I would only make the bet if I understood both sides - the skill of the candidate I am betting on (ok) - and the needs, culture and requirements of the company looking to hire.
As that second part is basically unknown then the only rational part is to withdraw the bet. Perhaps a smaller sum would work, but then betting 5 to get back 10 is no incentive - you may as well just ask.
I think I should put more effort into networking and recommending people for jobs - so something in this area is needed.
Good luck
AD: So this is integral to our system, those who are being asked to endorse candidates won't be doing so if they don't feel they either understand what the company is looking for or how capable their candidate is.
Think of the person you respect and admire the most in the workplace, and they've just asked you to endorse them for a role similar to their current one. The endorsement you give is contingent on them passing the probation only, would you give it?
I know your business but ONLY because I read your comments on this thread. The website did not tell me this
Use the wayback machine, look at websites of companies prior to getting funding or on the introduction of what eventually became cash cow products, you'll start to notice clear patterns. You're violating a bunch.
Is funding your own stake via a third party explicitly allowed, or is it abuse that's too hard to police and therefore you turn a blind eye, with the above justification?
If the latter, employers should be aware they may be biasing hiring in favour rule-breakers.
For most jobs, there are plenty of people who can do it. Of those people, this system advantages those with easier access to some financial capital. Not great for diversity or social mobility.
AD: It doesn't matter if you fund your friends to do it or you do it yourself, someone is taking the risk and so from a signal processing point of view it's a strong signal.
> For most jobs, there are plenty of people who can do it. Of those people, this system advantages those with easier access to some financial capital. Not great for diversity or social mobility.
AD: The stake is commensurate with the salary, and people are likely to be in similar socio-economic bracket with their peers. The rich already have an advantage in life, we can't change that, but we can equal the playing field by adjusting the price per unit of influence to match wealth distribution.