> The more interesting question is then, given that you've learned absolutely nothing from Starfighter because you've git cloned your way to the finish line, whether you can (in thirty minutes with me, or Erin, or Thomas) convince us "Yes, this person is totally someone I should burn my stack of accumulated karma with the CTO of $CLIENT with to suggest they interview them."
So, how is this any different from $CODER burning their accumulated karma directly with CTO of respective $CLIENT ? Why should we expect them to behave any differently because it's you, Erin or Thomas?
Patrick is saying that if someone is incompetent gets through with scripts, they'll still have to pass a chat with Patrick before Patrick puts his reputation on the line with a CTO.
That's my point. Why can't all of the IT recruiters that exist today simply just do the same thing? I'm failing to see how this is any different than the current funneling/filtering system?
They totally could do the same thing. They can come up with their own outreach programs to start meeting lots of developers at scale on the Internet. They can invent systems that reveal programming aptitude that isn't on the resumes of people who have been stuck doing line-of-business J2EE apps at insurance companies, or QA for enterprise products. They can hire people that can competently talk to developers on the phone or in person and actually learn things about them.
Maybe, with companies like ours and TripleByte in the mix, that's what they'll start doing. Won't that be interesting?
We're a bootstrapped startup founded by 3 veteran consultants. Consultancies always compete for gigs; that's why we have to write proposals. This isn't a consultancy, but we've learned our lessons. We sincerely do not give a shit about what other incumbent recruiting companies do. Our approach will work or it won't, and if it works, we're going to grind on it and continuously improve on it, and if other people do the same thing, eventually we'll start having meetups and sharing beers with them.
My impression is that Stockfighter is a reaction to the fact that recruiters are exceptionally lazy and prefer a basic keyword match on a resume to actually checking anything. If Stockfighter works well then I would guess IT recruiters will do the same thing, else they'll be competing against a company with a tremendous advantage over them and they'll lose lots of their competitive advantage.
To that end, it might be worthwhile starting a company to build something similar to Stockfighter that can easily be whitelabelled for recruitment companies.
Maybe cause IT recruiters don't have the karma? I'm sure there's some good ones, but most stories I've heard are pretty bad. They aren't actually developers and can't vet people. Patrick et al can. And recruiters that can do this? Well I imagine they're supply constrained.
Random devs don't have karma either.
Now that Starfighter's portrayed as a recruiting system, it makes total sense.
So, how is this any different from $CODER burning their accumulated karma directly with CTO of respective $CLIENT ? Why should we expect them to behave any differently because it's you, Erin or Thomas?