Hacker News Reader

Comment by paraschopra | Hacker News Reader

Does anyone else find the prospect of video résumé a bit frightening? Some people (myself included) are simply not that comfortable in front of a camera.

View on HN

i agree the prospect of filming yourself is somewhat uncomfortable but i've been stunned during the YC application review process by just how much a video adds to the application. it's actually, for me, the most important part of the application while reviewing it.

i believe employers will realize this too and once they do, they'll insist on having video as standard in applications. once that happens, uploading videos of yourself will become more commonplace and eventually feel less alien.

it's actually, for me, the most important part of the application while reviewing it.

why?

It is for me too, and the reason is that's it's so high bandwidth compared to text. At our stage, we care mostly about the people, and you can tell much more about people from watching them talk than from reading what they write, just as (though not to the same extent) you can tell more about someone from meeting them in person than reading a resume.

If video is the most important thing in a YC app, why is it optional and not required?

At first we didn't realize how useful it was. We kept the optional-ness afterward because it is itself a test.

Seems like kind of a strange filter to me. What is the connection between how well someone comes across on camera and how good they are at coding and developing a product? You say it's high bandwidth, but is the data useful? 50 terabytes per second of noise is still noise.

Also, I don't think this test fares very well in retrospect. Steve Jobs probably would've given a good video resume, but what about Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Evan Williams, and the like? These guys usually come across as duds on video.

It sounds like what you mean by coming across well on video = being charismatic. You seem to assume that's what we're looking for, but it's not. What we're looking for is people who will make good startup founders. We have a lot of data about what good startup founders are like, so we're able to recognize them well enough to make the video useful.

Study after study shows that people consider good looking, charismatic people smarter and more trustworthy. How can you make sure you're not falling into the same trap? This seems like it will just degrade into the prettier, charismatic people getting yet another leg up on everyone else.

I could be falling into this trap to some extent, but if you think about my background, I'd probably be less likely to fall into it than just about anyone else in the world. If anything I'd worry that I'd be inclined to discriminate against attractive people, not in their favor.

What are the key attributes that come across on video?

Off the top of my head, thoughtfulness, energy, and a good relationship between the founders.

I feel that it takes something away from applicants, and gives most of the value to the employer.

YC reviews are different; you're being reviewed by hackers who don't care if you hair is combed or if you wearing a hoodie with some nintendo character on it. I think employers would LOVE having this kind of rich information in their applications, but at what price to the applicants?

The rest of the world isn't as laid back as YC. If I'm going to have to start applying for jobs with video, I'm going to have to study the questions and write up scripts. Practice those scripts on video probably a dozen times, choose the best one. I have to dress up and gel my hair, clean up my background, clear my desk of cans and bottles. Worry about how my teeth look, if they can see that pimple on my cheek, etc. All for what will result in only a few mins of video. It sounds very trivial and superficial, but with video, a job application is now a pseudo-interview, if you mess that up, you don't get another chance. It takes much longer to cut a video reply you're happy with than it does to write a paragraph you're happy with.

I disagree that this will become standard on applications. The problem the majority of companies have with recruiting is sifting through large numbers of unqualified resumes that are total junk and a waste of time. Once past this phase video can add value, but just ask any recruiter if they would ever want to use this for screening. The answer will be 100% no. Many of these people have developed the ability to skim resumes in seconds, if you ask them to watch a 5 minute video instead they just won't.

Hopefully, adding the need to record a five-minute video will weed out some of the resume-spamming applicants, so the total stack of your resume size will become smaller. But I assume you'd only get around to watching videos once you'd narrowed down your stack of resumes to a manageable number, maybe twice as many as you plan to interview.

One of our goals is to help people feel more comfortable recording short videos. We don't see HireHive has a "video resume" (i.e. something you agonize over carefully crafting long answers to) so much as a lightweight way to answer questions off-the-cuff.

One of the challenges we face is to figure out how to set the tone so people can relax and be themselves. Is there anything that you think would help you feel more comfortable?

Thanks for the feedback :)

I think you're right to want people to be off the cuff, and also relaxed. I would personally try to emulate the traditional phone interview, optionally with video -- start off with some chitchat and background on the company to get candidates comfortable, and then ask questions which demand immediate and realtime, unrehearsed responses.

You have the chance of making the process more efficient, especially when there are hundreds or thousands of applicants. Maybe use a video pitch by the interviewer, clip about the company, etc. to set the setting and make the candidate comfortable, and then do instant-response questions with video response.

I might also start the interview with some super-softball questions, to get the user familiar with the system. "What's your name?" isn't really good, but some really easy tech questions or even general knowledge questions might be good.

The main benefits to me in having a bunch of recorded interviews is that I can instantly drop one if the candidate is obviously a reject. It took me a few years of hiring responsibility before I got to the point of "I'm sorry, I have to end this now" if someone is obviously unacceptable 5-10 minutes in. A problem with doing that in real life is that you need to block out the whole interview on your schedule, and it's harder to fit other things back in once that is freed.

Being able to outsource reviewing answers to other people in your organization would also be great -- e.g. sending the database question to your database guys. If you are really interviewing 1k people, you can have your database guy look at 10, grade those, and then have a junior person, based on those, grade any which pattern-match well, and refer the others back to the expert.

I'd still prefer a written or executable test for most technical jobs, at least as my initial screen, and an IM or phone chat, but I could see the value of this for some roles.

Thanks, these are all excellent suggestions! I particularly like the idea of having companies post intro videos to help set the tone and make people feel a little more comfortable.

I would provide some pointers and a variety of example videos. Offer a few great videos, with some explanation of why each is good, and do the same with some less-than-spectacular specimens.

Also, things like lighting and sound can make a pretty big difference, so providing basic info on optimizing your setup might help.

I also like the idea of having each company do an intro video that sets the mood.

Good luck!

Thanks for the suggestions, shelly! I think the both an intro video from the company and example videos with some advice for recording would be great additions.

I think it all comes down to the lingering issue of how much of ourselves are we willing to record for all to see. Another issue that video resume may raise is what I will call, remote discrimination; how good your video is may decide whether you get a call for in-house interview or not.

We did something similar with FacesForce.com and tried a few markets. Video is very tricky. It appears it is best to let users submit a video without being asked, but the issue with this is users do not want to pay. So the HH model will definitely bring in revenue faster.

A few people are worried they may be discriminated against if they send a video, but if someone is going to disqualify you based on what they see, they will do it when you show up for interview. So at least you save time.

The way someone looks on video is always so different from a face to face contact, discrimination most of the time has to do with perception more than anything. By talking to someone you get a better sense and generally throw off initial perception.

I think it's a lot easier for one interviewer in a team of a few, going over a big pool of applicants, to reject people for personal/stupid/illegal reasons if he can do so anonymously. Say there are 20 women applying out of 100; if only 5 people are brought in for in-person interviews, and 0 are women, it's a lot easier and less open to potential liability than if 5 candidates include one perfect female candidate and 4 objectively-lesser male candidates, and the female still doesn't get the job.

It's so weird and perhaps a sign that the US hiring market has some deep flaws that the discussion here has focused so much on discrimination. That really shouldn't be at the top of a business person's mind when they hire - hiring an employee is supposed to help make the company perform as best as it can in the future, full stop.

I see hire hives approach as great for everyone if they can execute well - it gives a much better idea of what a candidate is actually like than paper, without the expense or huge time sink (for both parties) of an in-person interview.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com