Show HN: Get discreet job interviews with your LinkedIn connections
jobrupt.com
jobrupt.com
Best not to truncate "they are" in this instance.
Select anyone with whom you are interested in a job interview. It is anonymous and private; your connections will not see you are interested unless they are too.
I don't get it. How will they find out I'm interested? Surely there needs to be a separate system for employers to register interest in people who they would willingly interview? The current format suggests that they would have to also use your site and select ME as someone THEY want to be interviewed by which makes no sense.
How do I select people I would willingly interview? How will I ever find out if another user wants me to interview them?
So many questions.
Sorry to be pedantic, but as long as we're doing grammar feedback: it's called contracting or a contraction, not truncate.
How does this make no sense? I think the idea is to save both parties from having to express premature rejection to the other.
In the current model we wanted to keep things simple and leave as much as possible to them to decide or know. With a check box, we may ask them to select exactly what they want with this particular person.
Do you think, for every selection, asking whether you want to hire or you want to work for a particular person is really necessary, or is it enough to leave this to them, of course with a certain risk of misunderstanding in some cases. I would be pleased to hear your opinion.
We appreciate your feedback.
Start having job interviews
I would suggest editing this to "start getting job interviews." The verb is more active and immediate, making the user feel they are receiving a benefit from your service instead of an incidental.
It may sound like a quibble, but to me the landing page copy is just as important, if not more important, than the design elements.
The matching is currently based on LinkedIn connections of yours. So, we hope Jobrupt to be used within some circles inside LinkedIn. If you have a match, we notify you through your email registered in your LinkedIn account. We don't particularly contact your selections, or connections.
That's the part I'm struggling to understand. How will I ever get a match?
Say I select Director A as someone I would be interested in being interviewed by. How would Director A ever find out? Surely Director A would need an "employer" account where they can select Potential Employee A as someone they would willingly interview?
Just think you are running a Scala or Ruby development team, and regularly meet a lot of developers in conferences. You are a small group, and you are connected to each other. However you don't want to offer jobs explicitly. In such cases Jobrupt may help. It's our hope, and it is still an experiment.
Let's use your example as context.
I am running a Scala or Ruby development team and regularly meet a lot of developers in conferences. I meet an amazing Scala developer at a conference but he seems happy in his current job and I don't want to plead with him to join our company.
Lets assume this amazing Scala developer subsequently signs up to your site and selects me as someone he would like to be interviewed by.
I will never, ever find out that he's interested.
Why? Using your current model, I, the hiring manager, would also have to select him as someone I want to be interviewed by.
The chances of this happening aren't slim, they are literally zero.
Hence my question on why you don't have a SEPARATE sign in for employers so that they can list people they would willingly interview.
You have potentially created an amazing tool but it's only 50% complete.
I think this execution is a fun one, but is it really all that needed?
Some example situations; you left your previous position and you want to come back, but are reserved to make the first move back to your previous boss. You are a well known programmer, and you are well connected to people, but you are reserved to make the first move. You want to hire your service provider, you want to hire your client, you want to hire a competitor etc. I accept that in majority of the cases employers and employers don't hesitate to make the first move, but I just try to contemplate some cases where Jobrupt may work. Finally this is just an experimental idea, and if it works for some people in some communities it will be worth the effort.
Again: really neat idea, and I think the execution is great too, but is it really needed?
Could you share why not? Is this just "feels better that way"?
English is my second language and maybe I should read more.
That might be a bit contradictory.
Also, it's not clear from your website – do you contact the people I select in step 1 out of band (by e-mail or something) and ask them if they are interested in interviewing any of their LinkedIn connections? How does this actually work, end-to-end?
If you're relying on my contacts also signing up for jobrupt, then, to a close approximation, that's never going to happen.
In a two-sided market like this, and with the anonymity constraint on top, it's really hard to see how it can succeed. Some ideas:
Focus on a niche you can target to get reasonable usage [1][2] (ideally >50% of users who might be selected, but at least 10% might be good enough).
Provide a concierge-type services to job-seekers – track down the people they select then find out if they are offering jobs (its possible but not clear if this is already what you are doing.)
[1] http://joel.is/post/39659497239/how-to-gain-traction-in-two-...
We don't contact people in your selection or connections. We want to focus on the small verticals where there is a high chance of match, like academicians, senior executives, developers, kernel developers etc. By spreading the word, you don't mention your selections. But if that still disturbs you, to be seen on jobrupt, you better not spread the word as privacy comes first.
Thanks for the great ideas on focus, niche, getting traction etc. They are great hints going forward.
This kinda breaks when someone ends up clicking 'like' for everyone they met at the event ! This someone in your case will be recruiters who'll use the information to hunt probable passive candidates.
So in search for discreteness, the job-seeker would end up falling prey to the game of head hunters.
Someone today suggested using it for intracompany hiring in large consulting companies like Accenture etc.
This is still experimental, we don't definitely aim to be a mainstream tool. We just hope it will benefit some people in some situations.
Good luck and I hope it works! :)
We get the point, I guess. People will feel less "desperate" in the eyes of the contractor, since they obviously also showed their interest. But at the end of the day, and this is why I will keep my skepticism for now, the contractor has many many more seekers out there who are willing to do the job, than the other way around.
Honestly, in a competitive market, this feel too weak from the contracter's point of view. I you want a job, show it properly that you can do the job well, not bitch around playing some sort of social game, trying to play hard to get or whatever. Tl;Dr: There's no time for this shit.
On the other hand: Great! Like a "Bang with friends" for job hunting! You get matched with whoever is looking for similar talents/positions, and then you evaluate the other part, whereafter you either secretly show your interest or not.
If the normal way is the hard way, this is the curling way where it doesn't hurt as much to get dissed, because maybe they just didn't notice you, right? But hey, you'll never know because you're too much of a pussy to find out.
My two cents.
The idea is to select whom you want to work with and leverage your connections in addition to other methods.
"Job searching/hiring turned upside down"
and
"Show HN: Dating turned upside down - Tomonotomo"
I'm wondering if this is just a coincidence or its the same person/entity. They both use cheesy stock photos on their landing page and have very similar layouts.