JIRA gets multiple mentions in this list. Does anyone still think that there's room for another dev tracking tool especially after how Linear has dominated adoption by startups?
Have you ever not interviewed a candidate presented by a recruiter?
Has a candidate presented by a recruiter never been a dud? Most recruiters I have worked with aren't able to assess my experience anyways.
It is absolutely possible that this can be gamed but the game won't last long. And it's possible that some level of vetting will need to be built anyway. We'll see.
> As a hiring manager,you would literally be taking value away from me since I would be reaching a smaller pool of candidates
No one is saying you're forced to use this as your only solution. Obviously you won't.
The chicken and egg is real. My plan to counter that is to only focus on the dev side first and find leads for them by brute force, i.e., initially I don't expect any employers to go to the platform.
I want to keep the verification light by design. Most employers aren't going to trust a platform's verification anyways. All these guarantees of top 2% devs are bullshit. I believe that basic resume review and occasionally asking an extra question or two takes care of the 80%. I think that's not a bad place to be since no platform is going to be perfect. My goal with verification is to make sure the platform isn't infiltrated by early career or devs who wouldn't pass the muster of most recruiter resume reviews.
You're exactly right. I want to build the whitepages of experienced devs. I'm not under any delusion that employers will just flock to this. I think if it at all works, much of the finding will have to be done on behalf of the employer, i.e., they tell what they want and we go scour the directory and send them leads.
But the part I'm not understanding is that you seem imply that recruiters are better at selection/vetting than a directory or platform that's run by experienced engineers who are selecting other experienced engineers.
I also don't think this is an either/or. Most managers only care about quality candidates coming through the door. So there can be multiple solutions. This isn't a winner take all market by any means.
It's a crowded field so getting noticed will be a challenge.
Your feedback is valid but looking at your bio, it's specific to your context.
I think you're way overqualified for most platforms/directories. It makes sense that you're represented by 10x. But between where you are and the early career dev, there are tens of thousands of devs who have good bit of experience and places they've worked at and yet have a hard time finding good work and relevant roles.
It's a myth that every experienced person has a strong network and lands their next gig/job through it. I'd say that only applies to 20% of devs. Most are still found by recruiters or apply cold.
Experience can be assessed by asking for LinkedIn/website/resume and checking that. This will probably suffice for the 90%.
It's not going to be foolproof. Just because someone has good experience in their background doesn't mean they're good. But neither are interviews foolproof. They can be gamed.
I wouldn't need to prove to companies that the vetting is valid. They can see the results themselves. The platform would die if the bar isn't maintained.
LinkedIn _is_ a free for all. This would also be anon by default and double opt-in for devs.