
Ask HN: How do you find a good corp-to-corp tech recruiter? - barefootcoder
In my experience, most recruiters are leeches on the system who only have short-term goals -- place as many as possible, no matter whether they fit, long term reputation be damned. I&#x27;ve experienced this from their telemarketer like calls as well as when I was leading a large project and needed additional help. The recruiters weren&#x27;t saving me any time -- if anything, they were costing me time and I finally demanded that I interview the candidates that my boss was bringing on. I&#x27;ve never had to work with them on the other side as in 20 years I&#x27;ve never had to search for a job and only interviewed once when I moved to a new area and didn&#x27;t have existing contacts trying to recruit me.<p>I recently left very profitable employment to form my own company and to start doing consulting&#x2F;contracting. So far I&#x27;ve been busy enough just through word of mouth, but eventually I expect that well to dry up since I live in an area without a huge number of tech companies, so I&#x27;m starting to put out feelers to build new relationships and find new potential clients.<p>I imagine there must exist a subset of recruiters who take time to fully vet their candidates and only promote them to companies who are a good fit. It seems that finding one of these could be a win-win. Just like on the hiring side, I don&#x27;t want to waste time dealing with carpet-bombers. I would love to build a meaningful relationship with one who can get to know me, get to know my skills, seek high quality matches from companies who also value this person&#x27;s selectiveness and talent pool.<p>Do such recruiters exist? How does one find them? And on a related note, are there particular recruiting companies (who place corp-to-corp contractors) that have a good reputation in this regard, and any that you would caution me to watch out for?
======
mathattack
For what it's worth, the few good recruiters I've seen aren't professional
recruiters. They are ex-bankers recruiting bankers, ex-consultants recruiting
consultants, and ex-salespeople recruiting salespeople.

Very few developers go into recruiting (hint: market opportunity) which is one
reason so many tech recruiters are garbage. (90+% of non-tech recruiters are
garbage too)

~~~
throwasay30966
Agreed! Although I've never used their services, I know a (non-tech) recruiter
who left its recruiting job at a big tech company to start this:
[https://karat.io/](https://karat.io/)

It seems to be: "As non tech recruiter we are not good at finding talents,
let's instead find skilled Engineers who are willing to do the recruitment for
us"

The idea looks good, and there's probably other recruitment companies doing
this, but I personally haven't heard of it before.

~~~
bbcbasic
Nice idea. Headline message is a bit confusing. Perhaps it should be:

"Need to hire techies? We can help. Our interviewers are experienced in
interviewing technical candidates. We'll make sure you only hire the best
engineers."

------
kafkaesq
_Do such recruiters exist?_

My sense at this point is that they basically don't. My experience has been
that while there have always been recruiters who were shady and/or flakey,
until about 5 years ago a significant enough minority were at least borderline
competent at the task they were nominally intended for (to wit: provide
ballpark vetting of candidates + finessing the negotiation and relationship,
generally). And up until then, they (also) seemed to be in it for the longer
haul -- and to at least intuitively understand that referrals and repeat
business actually _matter_ , and hence, that one's reputation is extremely
important (and not to be jeopardized by flakiness, shabby behavior generally).

That is: I never used to particularly like dealing with them... but there
seemed to be about 15% or so of their lot who seemed to be basically honest,
and if not particularly gifted at the vetting and relationship-building part,
they did manage to create value once in a while. Also, there wasn't nearly the
stigma against them (among both companies and developers) like there is now.

By now, though -- it seems this 15% has basically dried up. Now, it's not just
fake chumminess (and the considerable slice out of our paychecks), and
occasional lies we have to expect in dealing with them -- nowadays, they
_routinely_ lie, and routinely blow you off the minute they don't see a
commission coming. They blatantly don't care about repeat business with you,
or their reputation, _at all_.

There might be one or two out holdouts from the older, by no means "golden"
more more pragmatic, business-oriented days of this profession -- but if there
are, I don't see any significant chance that I might run into one.

~~~
barefootcoder
I sincerely hope that you're wrong, but I suspect that you are not. I would
love to be able to outsource the task of searching for new work and to stay
focused on the needs of my clients and learning new skills. Perhaps I'm
dreaming. :-)

~~~
hrehhf
I think that you are saying you need a salesperson, someone who sells your
services to potential clients. That is not the same as a recruiter. A
recruiter is paid by a company to find people to hire, whereas you pay a
salesperson to find people to pay _you_.

~~~
barefootcoder
That's an interesting way to put it.

~~~
mswen
It partly depends on scale. At the individual freelancer level it is hard to
think about or justify paying a salesperson to sell your services. It often
becomes clear when you have grown your freelance business into a small
consultancy with 4 or 5 consultants that you need to keep busy. Now it becomes
clear that what you need is a salesperson whom you pay and whose expertise and
interests are aligned with yours.

Another thing to consider is mutual commission arrangements with consultants
whose skills and services are complementary to your own. I have this
arrangement with a friend 10% commission on referred projects.

It hasn't been a great steady source but a project here and there comes my
way.

------
qaad
Recruiter here: I challenge you to look at what the demands are of each tech
company today. Everyone from Google, Facebook, and little consulting firms
don't care about people either. The reason why so many recruiters suck is
because so many of the organizations do not get recruiting and have put "top
of the funnel" sales metrics to help solve their problems. If you want your
recruiter to care about long term relationships and reputation maybe tech
companies need to do the same.

~~~
busterarm
While on the one hand I agree with you, Google, Facebook and most consulting
firms (I doubt they're that little) don't need you to fill their recruiting
pipeline. You know they pay well, so obviously you're more likely to want to
place with them.

When my small team went for our last engineering hire (a senior), we had to
actually seek out a recruiter on our own to find someone for us. We posted in
all of the usual places and went to meetups to network -- recruiters just
didn't bother to connect with us until we cold-called them going "we're
offering this much money". Only two of the ten or so we spoke to would we
consider using again.

I'm sorry, but your profession is generally lazy.

~~~
mathattack
Not as much lazy as following incentives. They would rather invest their time
(and network) on higher paying jobs that are likely to close.

Scenario 1: A larger company can pay 20% * 120K on a hire, that's $24,000.
Let's say that there's a 1/3 chance that the headhunter can fill it. Expected
value is $8K. Let's say it takes 100 hours of work, then it's $80/hour.

Scenario 2: A smaller company won't pay as much, will take more work finding
people interested, and they may not agree to take the job. Then it could be
20% * 100K = 20K. Perhaps a 1/4 chance of closing the deal = 5K expected
value. 200 hours to find someone = $25/hour.

The recruiter would rather do the first rather than the second.

------
dsk139
Yes, good recruiters exist just got to ask around for referrals.

I'm a software engineer that is currently bootstrapping my technical
recruiting business. Companies say they like working with me because:

1) my candidates are experienced (I do the vetting and they are all a part of
my network which I continue to build every day)

2) I spend a lot time finding what a candidate wants and what companies want
(so far 80% rate of engineers getting offers when I match albeit low sample
size)

3) I don't spam (candidates or companies- generally only make 1-2 matches per
company per month)

The reason so many bad recruiters exist is because the contingency payment
model really makes it so that spamming seems beneficial in the short-term and
makes the whole recruiting game very transactional (see real estate agents).
And contingency agreements are much easier to get (vs retained search).

I'm working on finding more creative ways to align incentives better and
building better sourcing tools.

~~~
busterarm
I've done a fair amount of matchmaking between companies and engineers myself.
I've occasionally gotten recruiting fees out of this but sometimes companies
have given me the runaround trying to collect. Often I'm just helping my
friends get work and I get paid in plane tickets and/or beer, so it's fine,
but it takes enough of my time now that I want cold hard cash.

How positive do you feel about this business and and how do you make sure you
get paid?

~~~
dsk139
Need a contingency agreement to get paid anything significant. Doesn't make
much sense since a good referral is worth a lot no matter what source it comes
from.

Right now I find out as much as I can about a company and if I like them I try
to get an agreement. If I can't and a candidate seems like a perfect match
I'll still refer them just bc I'm trying to build out relationships with the
hopes of getting an agreement for the next one.

As I build out my sourcing tools I'm using and automating more of my business
I will either sell my tools, get agreements with everyone, experiment with all
alternative payment methods (retained agreements, SaaS model, etc), or all of
the above.

I like the outlook in the industry though. Lots of players but lots of room
for growth esp. b/c looking at eng- lots of future demand for jobs, lots of
companies moving between stages (startup to big co), and lots of companies bad
at retaining employees.

------
chrisjames
I'll take this opportunity to shine a light on the company I work for,
Independent Software. We are in a similar space and value many of the things
you do.

We run a program called Apprentice100 (A100). A100 is a 12-week program
designed to teach emerging computer science students the real-world skills
they need to be junior developers, connect them to the local development
community, and match them with jobs. We're not a bootcamp - we work with
students that have a formal academic background in CS. We're also not a
recruiter - we provide training and we value our community. We build
relationships with all the students and companies we work with. We hold events
to bring people in our network together and cultivate good Apprentice/company
matches.

We do charge a flat fee to hire an Apprentice and in return the hiring company
is eligible for a 70% refund on that fee and 50% wage reimbursement for 1
year. This week we became the first software apprenticeship program in the
nation to be formally recognized by the DOL and DOE.

In addition to A100 we have been working more and more with mid and senior
level developers.

I chime in here not only to spread the word of A100 specifically but also to
say that some of us out there are trying to do job matching in a way that is
good for everyone. It seems like dsk139 and other responders in this thread
are doing the same.

\------

My apologies if this message is scattered or littered with errors. I am typing
into a very small comment box from a very noisy train.

~~~
bear_south
Cool model, think roughly this makes sense. Can you give some idea of average
fee. My guess is about $20k or 30% of starting salary, then with the
reimbursement factors that you mention? Also, while they are in the 12 weeks i
assume the startups they are helping / learning with building probably pay you
total of $5-10k per 12 week session? If you can't share totally I get it, but
there are multiple code schools i know in my area and may want to share some
of these ideas with their leaders / founders that I know. Thanks

------
scottlocklin
I've done recruiting as part of my (data science) consultancy. Aka, I build
out a solution for a customer, then staff it for them. My pipeline was a large
personal network, including several academics who pitched promising students
at me, and a private forum where excellent examples of such people could be
found. Though I have a bias in saying so, that worked reasonably well.

Recruiters do have a principal agent problem that I didn't. Then again, hiring
managers are often insane. "I want a world class DS guy for $90k a year" is
not realistic.

------
liquidcool
I'd like to think I qualify, but I really identify as a software consultant
(coder/manager type) who also does recruiting/contracting. I'm happy to answer
any questions about this.

I got into this because I'm very personable and have a large professional
network. This is from running the largest Java User Group in SoCal, and now a
tech interview meetup, plus attending many others. I'd been hearing (and
experiencing) what you described for years, so I figured I could be the best
recruiter in the area - kind of like the world's tallest halfling. To be
honest, it's harder than I thought.

Obviously, most recruiters don't know anything about technology. They rely
entirely on the candidate qualifying themselves and the hiring manager giving
helpful feedback. So at a minimum, they should have a good relationship with
the hiring manager. Internal recruiters are competing with you and may try to
block access. I simply dropped a client that did that, but usually it's the
hiring manager who brings me in.

I also don't know how recruiters do this for other cities, much less halfway
around the world like the offshore recruiters. First thing I did was check to
see if you listed a location, because unless I have a client who allows remote
work (rare) it's hard to help.

Again, happy to answer any specific questions.

------
gldev
I once was offered a position for Java, passed the technical tests and all,
turns out the job was all using C# and .NET, thankfully i was skilled enough
to get the hang of it in a few days but it was very weird; how can people like
this get paid for such terrible performance.

~~~
kasey_junk
In every .NET shop I've seen they will take Java experience & vice versa.
There just isn't enough difference not too.

Recruiters are pretty uniformly bad but this seems a weird example of it.

------
afarrell
If someone coming to this thread is looking for a recruiter in Ireland or the
UK, I have two people I have been meaning to write recommendations for:

Michael Diver <mdiver@softwareplacements.ie>

Julietta Contoguris <julietta@campbell-north.com>

As an American who was looking for a visa-sponsoring job abroad, they were
both super helpful, communicative, non-pushy, and knowledgable.

------
zhte415
Yes, they do exist. My experience:

They do tend to be lone wolves, happy to fill just 1-2 vacancies per month. 2
would be a good month, and cause them to slow down.

They're often from the field they specialise in, and recruit at senior levels,
as they've knocked up 10-20 years' experience in the field themselves, and
anything lower in the chain would not be worth their time.

How to get to know them? Know someone they know, that's the easiest way.

For non-senior roles, as above:

There are 2 problems:

Finding: Actual souls that exist purporting some skill-set.

Filtering: Who is actually competent at this skill-set.

(Perhaps a third: Fit, but that's fuzzy)

Finding: Go cheap. Let them trawl databases and send you 50 CVs per day,
anything counts, because their judgement is not as good as yours. Filter:
Takes less than 2 minutes to read a CV and put it in 'reject' or 'read more'.

------
knurdle
I went through quite a few recruiters before finding someone I really liked
and trusted and sent me good candidates.

What I've learned is that it really comes down to the recruiting firm. The
person I ended up using, their firm has incentivized them to stay and build
relationships, not just go for the quick sell. They are the only person I know
who has stayed at the same firm for years.

All the other recruiters I've tried have basically jumped to a new firm every
6 months to a year, they are just chasing the money.

So I would say ask talk to the recruiters/firm. Ask them how long they've been
in that company, what's the average tenure.

~~~
busterarm
We found a "build relationships" type recruiter, but he keeps trying to take
us out to basketball games, etc. That's fine but uncomfortable because we
can't guarantee him any new business. We haven't hired anyone since the last
placement and aren't likely to soon.

------
jedberg
They do exist but they don't work for commission.

I've worked with some amazing recruiters who would only send me people that
were at least in the right ballpark. But they were all in house recruiters who
had a salary and were not evaluated on how many of their candidates were
hired, but instead on how well they sourced and brought people in for
interviews.

So I guess my advice to you is, if you can afford it, bring someone on full
time, in which case they would be more of a bizdev person for you than a
recruiter.

------
JSeymourATL
> I would love to build a meaningful relationship with one who can get to know
> me, get to know my skills, seek high quality matches from companies who also
> value this person's selectiveness and talent pool.

The Profile of the recruiter that you're looking for is woefully Old School.
Yes, a few still exist. Look for the seasoned players, the gray haired
GenX/Boomer guys.

Understand that his clients often take dim view of 'consulting/contrator'
talent (you) as mercenaries. Sadly, this perception infects the broader talent
marketplace.

As for the path to building any relationships, Dale Carnegie put it best -
“You can make more friends in two months by becoming interested in other
people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in
you.”

------
anexprogrammer
In a 25 year career I concluded they basically don't exist. 99.9% are
professional salespeople - commission driven, and nothing much else matters.

Understanding that clarified much of the cliche recruiter behaviour. Your
needs are secondary to their commission and sales funnel.

The couple of exceptions who were truly professionl and mde real efforts on
the candidates side were in one case a guy with some dev experience too, at an
agency that also had an IT division. The other was an extremely niche firm,
tightly focussed on a specific area of banking, started by an ex developer.

Having also had experience of dealing with agencies and recruiters from the
employer side I ended up having no idea at all of the attraction of using
them. They didn't save time, they didn't achieve any better candidates, and
some were basically dishonest.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Right now a guy is sending me a mix of medical, software and truck driving job
openings around the country. I guess he talked to me, then randomly poked
buttons on his computer. I do embedded software. Some New York firm of
recruiters.

------
jackson23
I get many calls from third party recruiters and some directly from Hiring
Managers or internal HR...all from posting my resume on job boards and
LinkedIn. Most of the third party recruiters are unfortunately worthless and
from New Jersey...I have no idea why, I live in Portland, OR. I am a Sr.
SharePoint Consultant/Architect/Admin/Dev with over 20 years of IT experience
and 8+ years of SharePoint experience. I now run my own consulting company and
utilize the job boards only to get corp-to-corp or direct contracts with
companies. Of the many of thousands of third party recruiters only two have
really stood out to me. I am not otherwise affiliated with them or their
companies (though I have worked with them):

Lisa Matar, founder and owner of Collaborative Vision
[http://cvhires.com](http://cvhires.com), a boutique third party recruiting
firm based in Portland, OR has fostered a positive relationship with me and
with the companies that she works with. I had a question about a corp-to-corp
SharePoint migration contract I learned of from a different recruiting
company. Lisa reached out to the CTO of a large Healthcare company most of us
have heard of within minutes and provided the information I needed. While the
role was cancelled due to a long story, I was blown away by her execution. She
is also very competent with current technologies, though she is not a
developer or admin. Lisa really understood my background and experience and
has proactively pinged me about positions and sometimes for my feedback. She
is also very willing to place consultants corp-to-corp if the end client
allows it. Thank you Lisa, you are the best.

Another recruiter is Susan Schmidt at InfoGroup Northwest with offices in
Portland and other cities. Susan called me, I aced the interview same day, got
the ball rolling, let me sign the paperwork electronically, and had me in a
client-paid-for hotel room in a different city the same day, working the next
day on a contract (it was kind of urgent for the company and me at the time).
Unfortunately my recent experiences with InfoGroup have been negative...no
feedback, no pings, I'm just a wet bag of meat that has potential to put money
in their hands from my work. Chris R, the owner of InfoGroup is a very
impressive woman and has a great business sense, which means shrewd in her
case. I hope IGNW gets it back together, because they have coordinated several
corp-to-corp contracts for me that I would not have otherwise known about and
are mostly great to work with.

Does anyone know of any other recruiters in Portland that are open to finding
corp-to-corp opportunities?

------
jasonswett
Good recruiters absolutely do exist. I've met them at local tech meetups.

~~~
jasonswett
BTW, I can even introduce you to some if you'd like. Send me an email at
jason@benfranklinlabs.com and I'd be happy to make an intro. (I'm a freelancer
too.)

------
trhway
>to fully vet their candidates and only promote them to companies who are a
good fit. It seems that finding one of these could be a win-win. Just like on
the hiring side, I don't want to waste time dealing with carpet-bombers.

"fit" is in the eyes of beholder. Hiring these days seems to be very
capricious in nature, basically a domain of chance like a roulette, and thus
it is subject to the same statistical approach of carpet bombing of every
possible wall with spaghetti, i.e making the highest number of lowest cost
bets.

------
asimuvPR
I don't know if they exist. I sure have not met one yet. However, you have an
option that might be worthwhile to you. Good technical content will usually
draw programmers. They will sign up to your newsletter if you consistently
publish quality content. You don't need to blog every day, but something like
once every three weeks works fairly well. People will then come to you because
you have proved to them that you know your stuff (hopefully you do). :)

------
vonnik
In my experience, recruiters, like salespeople or journalists, develop
expertise for a few domains. That is, they're usually not good at recruiting,
selling or writing about any old thing. So to really answer your question,
people would need to know exactly what you do, which technologies you use,
etc. Among firms, I've heard that Riviera Partners is good.

------
rexreed
Nope, these recruiters don't exist, or if they do, are exceedingly rare. Time
after time after time in dealing with them in the past few years, all I get
the sense of is that they're looking for quick returns with little work.

Recruiters, PR Firms, and Event planning companies I've found to be complete
waste of time in working with as a startup. Or an event company.

------
yanilkr
The compensation model also seems unfair. Many tech recruiters get a cut of
engineer's hourly wage and even with that high price I found tech recruiting a
very random selection process.

Many good managers I know don't believe that they will find stellar candidates
via recruiters.

------
maxxxxx
From my experience all recruiters suck. Some more, some less. You are just a
commodity for them.

You should focus all your efforts into building up relationships with clients,
small consulting companies and other consultants. The money is better and the
work is more interesting.

------
sportanova
You can tell that they're a terrible recruiter when they try to give you the
"Most recruiters do X, but we're different..." speech

------
busterarm
Aline Lerner.

That's the only good one I know. Seriously. And I think she's turned that into
a different/related business now.

------
drusenko
I'm guessing with near certainty that you're talking about contingency
recruiters. Contingency recruiters are the type you "pay for performance" \--
if you hire someone, they get a fee, typically ~20% of first year's salary. If
you don't, they get nothing.

In theory, this business model incentivizes everyone perfectly -- they only
get paid if they perform. In practice, it's awful and doesn't work at all.

To understand why, think about it from their perspective as an honest
recruiter trying to do a good job. You give them a call, and have all kinds of
very specific requirements for the kinds of candidates you are looking for.
They need to spend a lot of time upfront working for you, which is an
asymmetric commitment, since you aren't paying them anything until they hire
someone, which means a few weeks of free work on their end up front in the
best case scenario. Just like there are a bunch of flaky recruiters that drive
by and waste your time, there are a bunch of flaky companies that do the same
to them, except they don't have any upfront commitment.

What this means is that the contingency recruiter model tends towards a resume
dump. It's nearly completely worthless -- the only thing you could get out of
it is to insist that they just send you a dump of all resumes they have that
match your criteria.

The good news is, there are other recruiting models that work much better.

A retained search is usually done for a more senior position, and it works
very well. You agree that they have the exclusive on the search, and agree on
some large fee you will pay them for finding you a VP of X. You pay half of it
up front and you won't get it back if you don't end up hiring someone -- the
reason is because they will dive deep into your needs and go out and find
candidates specifically for you. They put in a lot of work up front, so you
pay some up front, too. They will often have great relationships with the
candidate pool you are looking for, and might even place the same person 2 or
3 times throughout their career. Because there more risk up front for you, you
will interview their references extensively and rely on their reputation.

The third type of recruiting business model that works really well is a
contract recruiter. This is someone who is basically a contractor for you.
They may work full time, or maybe 1/2 to 1/3 of their time at several
companies, depending on how many positions you are trying to fill. You pay
them a flat rate for their time, and will likely set performance expectations
(for example, it might be reasonable for one 1/2 time recruiter to hire 1
great engineer per month), but their pay will be fixed and not performance
based. This person comes into your office, becomes a part of your team,
understands exactly what it is you are looking for, and helps with all of the
leg work of recruiting: sourcing, screening, scheduling, extending the offer,
and onboarding. You take some risk, because they might not be very good and
you might not find that out for a few months, but no more risk than you take
with any other regular employee. If they are good, this person will become a
very critical part of your team, and will help you build an amazing team!

There are a lot of people that have tried to solve the contract recruiting
model, and most have failed. The only people I know doing well are Triplebyte,
and I hope they succeed because, as this thread shows, there are a lot of
people who would like it to work!

------
AndreyErmakov
What you probably don't realize yet is that there are two problems here, or in
other words, the problem is twice as grave as you might think it is.

Most recruiters and agencies are utterly incompetent. It's the fact that
practically everyone involved in IT knows. That's why companies avoid dealing
with recruiters in general, being unable to spot the good ones (and I
certainly wish to believe they exist). But even if you run into a good
professional recruiter, you are still going to be suffering from the second
problem.

Which is developing on the other side of the fence. Software engineers too are
painfully aware of the recruiter tactics and many good developers have long
banned them. Recruiters might try to approach them but people won't even pick
up the phone.

That means that even the good recruiters (if you ever find them) will only
have a very narrow and scarce pool of good people to offer you. Much narrower
than it might have been if things in the hiring industry were different.

What I'm saying is that you should not necessarily look at the recruiters as
your salvation. There might be great people near you who effectively avoid the
recruiters' radars. You really should look into finding means to discover and
contact people directly.

It's not the thing that everyone is happy to admit but the reality is that
hiring key people in software industry is manual labor which can't really be
outsourced or automated. Recruiters in general are not involved in any of the
industry, therefore they have no knowledge of what drives the businesses, what
problems they are facing and how skilled individuals fit into the picture.
Therefore, their only usefulness is to place the workers of lowest ranks where
they don't play an important role. Everyone believes that recruiters are
placing top people in top companies and playing an important role in the
economy, that's the general story of their place in the universe that they
like to spread and maintain, but the reality is that they mostly place low-
level grunt workers who have no advanced skills and therefore do not require
vetting by a competent specialist.

The only difference might be if a recruiter would be coming from a specific
industry having spent there an appreciable number of years and having learned
all the ins and outs. Then they would be able to fully understand the client
needs and find the right people to satisfy the requirements. But then it would
really be just a different form of "specialists hiring specialists",
specifically "former specialists hiring specialists".

Your best bet under these circumstances is to dedicate some time to conducting
PR activities like talking about your company, hanging out in the places where
good developers hang out, unobtrusively advertising yourself to them and
directly approaching certain people that you spot who you believe might be
persuaded to come on board. Once more, it's long, tedious, manual labor but
it's just the way things are.

Having said that, I do recognize the value that recruiters might provide to
the industry if they changed their ways. There really is a place for them in
the economy and they could in principle significantly ease the lives of both
companies and candidates. But for now, they only seem to be making everyone's
lives harder.

------
syngrog66
speaking as a software engineer I'd prefer an agent

~~~
devin
This is definitely a thing that exists for top-tier engineering candidates in
the financial space, but there are very, very few of them.

------
pmiller2
I guess this is a good place to put this out: if any good Bay Area recruiters
are looking to place someone with ~3 years of Python and Django, my email is
in my profile. Or, if anybody has any referrals to good Bay Area recruiters,
that would be wonderful as well.

