
Launch HN: Searchlight (YC W19) – Hiring based on past performance, not resumes - annawangx
Hi HN community! We’re Anna and Kerry, co-founders of Searchlight (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.searchlight.ai" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.searchlight.ai</a>). Our software helps candidates be judged by their past performance rather than their resume or where they went to school.<p>We built this product to help job candidates and hiring managers. With platforms like Linkedin and Indeed, hundreds of applicants with indistinguishable resumes apply for the same job with just one click. Kerry and I both have backgrounds in software engineering, and we were frustrated by how time-strapped hiring managers increasingly over-index on the “snob test” (a.k.a. where the candidate went to school) or contrived technical screens [1][2]. We’re also twin sisters who went to the same school and worked at the same companies. We look indistinguishable on paper, so we are especially keen to bring a new product to the hiring space that will allow candidates to express their individuality beyond their resumes. When we looked at the landscape of current hiring tools, we realized that the majority of them are self-promotional (resumes, personal websites, Linkedin, etc) and difficult to substantiate at first glance. This disadvantages people who aren&#x27;t good at promoting themselves, or don&#x27;t like to, and these are often the best candidates! We saw that a poorly conducted technical screen can penalize the most talented engineers. Worse yet, we learned that take-home coding challenges are a real pain point for certain demographics, like parents who don&#x27;t have the time to thoroughly attack a 24 hour coding challenge because they have to take care of their kids.<p>This made us think - why are we ignoring the the perspectives of people who actually know what it&#x27;s like to work with a candidate? This data is the most indicative of success on the job [3][4], but isn&#x27;t currently being leveraged until the end of the process, if the employer conducts reference checks. This is why we built Searchlight to better assess candidates early in the hiring process. Currently, we work directly with employers to invite their applicants to the platform. Job seekers can invite as many advocates as they want to speak to their accomplishments and capabilities (some invite as many as 10). The references share feedback like specific examples of how the candidate demonstrated desired competencies and how future managers can set the candidate up for success. Then, we analyze this feedback to assess candidate-position compatibility by matching the requirements of the role to the candidate&#x27;s strengths. Our recommendations for strong candidates are based on a mix of quantitative factors like average ratings of core competencies, and qualitative factors like work style and environmental fit (which we currently human QA). One of our core beliefs is that every candidate is exceptional in their ideal environment, so all the feedback gathered on Searchlight - regardless of whether the candidate gets an offer - is saved and available for the candidate to use and share.<p>We aim to make the hiring process more fair. We are building trust and legitimacy into our platform by tying each reference to a specific job experience, verifying references through work emails or Linkedin profiles, and keeping the feedback hidden from candidates. While no tool is perfect, we know that the insights surfaced by Searchlight allow for better decision-making than traditional resume scans, with no extra time commitment for employers. We are especially excited to see that Searchlight is already helping diverse applicants get to the on-site interview stage after being initially screened out.<p>We&#x27;d love to hear about your experiences in today&#x27;s hiring process and if Searchlight would be helpful to you! Thanks for reading.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=15688972" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=15688972</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=2175147" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=2175147</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;dornsife.usc.edu&#x2F;assets&#x2F;sites&#x2F;208&#x2F;docs&#x2F;Ouellette.Wood.1998.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;dornsife.usc.edu&#x2F;assets&#x2F;sites&#x2F;208&#x2F;docs&#x2F;Ouellette.Woo...</a><p>[4] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.linkedin.com&#x2F;pulse&#x2F;how-predict-on-the-job-performance-30-minutes-lou-adler&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.linkedin.com&#x2F;pulse&#x2F;how-predict-on-the-job-perfor...</a>
======
underyx
> Gather true, unbiased insights from those who already know what it’s like to
> work with your candidate

How can you be so sure they're unbiased? I would worry a lot that this will
just favor candidates who are more amiable and have less honest friends.

~~~
annawangx
Thanks for the question (and visiting our landing page)! You're right that
opinions always carry the perspective of the person giving them. We try to
minimize the bias by:

1) Gathering a larger number of perspectives

2) Asking gold-standard questions that get to the specifics and contextualized
examples

3) Every referencer is tied to a specific work experience and provides their
contact information, which helps hold referencers accountable to their
feedback.

~~~
loosetypes
> gold-standard questions

Does this not just mean trendy? Can you provide an example?

~~~
annawangx
One question that we ask is: "We are all learning every day. What was an area
of development for this candidate back when you worked together?" An example
of a less open-ended question is asking the reference to stack rank strengths
that the employer wants to learn more about.

------
camreynoldson
Unsure if this actually makes the process more fair. A lot of job seekers
probably don't want all of their history carried with them. A previous
employer that could've been a bad fit could ruin your future if you don't have
a clean slate.

~~~
annawangx
Being a candidate-centric platform, we give candidates the ability to choose
who advocates on their behalf. We also do not require that candidates share
references from every experience, knowing that sometimes candidates are
uncomfortable with their current employer knowing that they are job-searching.

We also understand that everyone's ideal work environment is different. We ask
a specific question related to which environments and work styles can set a
particular candidate up for success.

------
lowercased
Recently went through a process where references were needed. One of my
references shared what was asked, and one of those was "what is person X's
biggest weakness". There was an indication that submissions _without_
answering that question would be discounted entirely.

I looked at your sample report, and it seems very much like an expanded
"linkedin", where it's just about the positives. Knowing - honestly - where
someone is weak will help avoid bad fits.

I've been a reference for a couple of folks recently, and I always ask the
person calling what the style of the role in question is. Person X might be a
great person and _capable_ of XYZ, but only with support/oversight from a more
senior person. If the role is expecting them to be self sufficient, and I know
they need oversight, I'd try to push that. Me just saying "oh yeah, they're
great", or only talking about the positives doesn't really help as much as a
full set of questions which also include honest downsides/weaknesses.

~~~
onion2k
Here in the UK, while it's not actually illegal to give someone a bad
reference, no employer does because an inaccurate reference is grounds for
legal action. You have to be able to provide evidence for everything you say.
Consequently lots of employers only provide the dates you worked from and to
and what your final salary was.

The fallout from someone not getting hired because the "honest downsides" were
a bit _too_ honest (or not honest enough) would not be pretty.

~~~
fhbdukfrh
This is true everywhere in the sense that there's absolutely no upside to
giving someone a bad references. About all you can do for someone terrible is
confirm factual data and refuse to comment on any opinion based questions. The
requester can't even interpret that as a negative endorsement because lots of
companies only do the same thing for good candidates.

------
Stryder
Slippery slope here. Why precisely is past performance indicative of future
performance beyond some very weak correlations? Analogously, is a person's
last relationship truly indicative of their future mating potential?

I understand that /some/ people believe it to be so, but I believe it's wrong
to move society towards this. We should be going in the opposite direction-
that you are as good as what you are aspiring to and putting in the work to
become tomorrow.

~~~
sokoloff
I think past performance of a human is generally pretty strong as an
indicator.

It's rare (though possible) for someone to turn from a lazy, self-entitled
dilettante into a hard-working ace coder. It's rare for someone to turn from
an excellent coach and mentor into an insufferable bastard.

~~~
SeanAppleby
> It's rare (though possible) for someone to turn from a lazy, self-entitled
> dilettante into a hard-working ace coder.

Is it though? In my experience people are good at building things that they
care about and bad at building things they don't care about.

If someone has been trapped working on sisyphean bullshit projects I would
expect them to do much better on something they cared about, and the initial
sorting of people into what they work on is often largely indiscriminate when
it comes to what they care about, so I would expect there to be a significant
percentage of people underperforming at their current job who would excel
elsewhere.

I know at least personally, my job performance has fluctuated wildly depending
on whether or not I cared about what I was supposed to do.

If you managed to incentivize me enough to get me to leave what I'm doing well
now to go do something that I thought was rent seeking and deeply meaningless,
I would most likely perform very poorly, and I've already had the opposite
happen where I performed mediocrely in a boring area and then performed
incomparably better when I got into doing things I cared about.

------
jedberg
I said this as a reply, but I thought it warranted repeating.

I would never give negative feedback about a former employee to anyone ever. I
have no guarantee that that information is private, and they could sue me for
defamation or a whole host of other things if they found out, especially if it
ended up causing them not to get a job. That's real damages.

I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. In fact every hiring manager
I've ever talked to about this has said the same thing.

I think they only way I'd feel comfortable giving negative feedback is if you
insured me against lawsuits due to my feedback, to the tune of many millions
of dollars. And even though I'm not so sure I'd do it.

~~~
annawangx
I hear your points. The feedback on Searchlight is kept private to the
candidate, and only shared with employers the candidate has chosen.

~~~
jedberg
Ah ok maybe I didn’t understand the process. So all my feedback goes to the
candidate first? And they only choose to forward that on after they’ve
reviewed it? In that case I’d probably be comfortable giving them the negative
feedback.

As a consumer of your service, I’d be a little worried about the client only
showing me the good stuff. But I guess if the questions are complex enough it
would be hard to filter for only good stuff.

~~~
vadym909
I don't think that's what they mean. Its hidden from the candidate and the
candidate doesn't know whats in it - except from the result of that
application. but only the candidate can decide which employers to show it to.
Weird why I might want to show or not show references when I don't know what's
in it.

------
3into10power5
Since we are talking about hiring and since this is a YC startup, having
seeing other YC startups in this general area, I would caution people
regarding using these services.

1)If employer 'X' invites me to platform 'Y', I should not have to accept 'Y'
privacy policy. It is between 'X' and 'Y' and I do not have much choice except
rejecting it outright.

2) Just because 'Y' has my email address does not mean, 'Y' can start sending
me marketing mail (Hello Hacker rank?). I don't need your tips, suggestions
and all that crap.

3) Don't use forums like triplebyte. You are better off talking to individual
companies yourself. Triplebyte is basically a funnel to make YC companies'
hiring more efficient. Lets say you failed triplebyte's interview/test and
they share this info with company 'Y'. What will you do if 'Y' chooses to
never call you for an interview again? Your potential companies list is now
smaller, and worse you also don't know why!

4) Too many recruiting emails now track you through open rates. It is ok if
Twilio sends me an email asking me for an exploratory call, but if they send
my name, email, actively searching status to their "vendor" named eightfold.ai
or searchlight.ai or to some random website called zen.sr, Its unacceptable.
What if eightfold.ai or searchlight.ai also sells a product called "predict
attrition". I don't want to be in trouble.

~~~
dang
That's not an accurate description of Triplebyte, which isn't affiliated with
YC beyond being funded by YC, just like numerous other startups trying to fix
hiring have been. Presumably they work with tons of non-YC companies since
they'd be dumb not to. (Also, I'd be shocked if they did the kind of data
sharing you're talking about, because it sounds like a bad thing to do and
also a dumb one). You might be thinking of YC's Work at a Startup program?
That is a bit closer to what you describe, though hopefully not bad (or dumb)
either!

~~~
scarejunba
Triplebyte is clean. I work at a non-YC and they don't share candidates who
failed tests. We literally don't see them. And I prefer it this way. The other
one would be a waste of time.

------
rboyd
I’d love to see something like this for abusive bosses. I had a short stint
with a manager who yelled at the team, said inappropriate things about my
girlfriend, called at all hours, embarrassed teammates to the point of tears
etc. I left early into the job, but 2 years later I still get emails from the
team about fruitless stories trying to get HR to do something.

There should be a yelp for bad bosses so you can avoid these situations.

------
pgroves
I see your wall of text, and raise you a wall of text:

I've started looking for a new job recently. I clicked the button on LinkedIn
saying recruiters could contact me and have gotten over 100 incoming messages
since Christmas. I'm not sure which buzzwords I have that are causing it. Many
are junk, but not all. They all want a 'quick chat' to proceed. There are
probably 20 I would talk to but getting started scheduling phone calls is
going to be a huge pain given I have a software job that I do all day. Just
responding to the 100 messages as "no thanks" or "let's schedule something" is
going to take a day. I outsourced updating my resume and website, and am
trying to get Hubspot working to set up a sales funnel (but that works
horribly with linkedin email redirects, so not sure that's going to stick).
I'm trying to get organized and would even pay for someone to actually
represent me and help with logistics, but the 3rd party recruiting industry is
built around pleasing companies for money, never the candidate.

So I'm not sure recruiters and hiring managers need more coddling and new
tools to target candidates. They already have the candidates out-gunned by a
few orders of magnitude. And they have resources (and their own time) to deal
with their pipeline. I don't. Maybe they could spend a little time and effort
differentiating themselves? Cuz these job ads all look the same, and they all
think they're doing me a favor for allowing me to be considered for an
interview. If they are getting a lot of resumes that look the same, maybe
that's a signal about themselves and not about the overall population of
developers looking for jobs?

And as for getting my past employers to provide recommendations... They are
all hiring. It seems crass to ask them to write me a recommendation while
making it clear I don't want my old job back. The time to ask for the
recommendation would have been when I was working there.

~~~
vangala2
I think if you go to peers who you trust from old roles there should be no
awkwardness in asking for a rec. However, I totally empathize with every
company seeming similar when you're an applicant. It's hard to get a sense of
the intangibles of a workplace until you actually work there. That's something
I'd like to see a startup tackle

~~~
willnwhite
Glassdoor?

------
tathougies
> This made us think - why are we ignoring the the perspectives of people who
> actually know what it's like to work with a candidate?

Because saying negative things about a past employee can cause you to become
liable for libel or slander.

~~~
annawangx
The legal aspect is another interesting part of this problem. We have reviewed
the legal statutes by state and our terms and conditions make sure our
references comply with the law. We require that our references give their
feedback without malice and to the best of their knowledge.

~~~
jedberg
That won't stop a former employee from suing me though. I might win the case,
but I'd still have to pay a fortune to defend myself.

~~~
tathougies
Yeah, my business law professor told the entire class to just never give
references period. There is no gain, and everything to lose.

Even saying positive things like 'Employee X was fantastic; she was really
good at Y' can be grounds for libel. The employee will claim standing based on
the fact that, by saying she was good at 'Y' and not 'Z' (which is what the
employer really wanted), it was libel by omission.

------
dstola
In my opinion, the only two entities that should be involved in the process is
the employer and the candidate. Adding more human elements will I think
increase potential for abuse (favoritism) and in my opinion single out more
extroverted people who have more references and whom they know will say
positive things about them. Contrived example; extremely introverted developer
who cant make friends and would never ask for references due to various
reasons (shyness, anxiety, apathy). He will not benefit from this because he
has no references to begin with even if he is a brilliant engineer.

~~~
annawangx
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It's hard to build a product that suits
everyone, but we try to be as inclusive as possible. In your example, the
introverted engineer probably has standard professional relationships with a
manager and/or a direct report that he can invite to speak to his
capabilities.

I hear your opinion that a hiring process should stay between the employer and
the candidate. Unfortunately, the reality is that most hiring processes today
depend on a more human element, like a referral. We hope to make it possible
for people without this access can also gather support around their candidacy.

~~~
confidantlake
Honestly this product discriminates against tons of people and would make the
hiring process much worse. I hope it doesn't succeed as I believe this product
would make the world a worse place.

I have an anxiety condition, this would be awful for me, for others with
anxiety conditions, for introverts, for people with families, for people who
care more about work than about networking.

I disagree that most hiring depends on referrals. I recently did a job search
and didn't use any referrals. I have anxiety about posting an anonymous
comment on a board to a stranger I have never met and don't care anything
about. I can't just invite my manager to speak about my capabilities. Also
what if my manager was toxic?

------
tfehring
Replying again because this question occurred to me: At what point in the
hiring process do you expect these references to be used? If I'm a hiring
manager getting ~200 applicants per opening, there's no way I'm reading ~2,000
of these references individually. But if I'm only requesting references for
candidates who've passed the resume screening process, the bias in that part
of the hiring process will remain. Will you provide tools for hiring managers
to use NLP, etc., to allow for automated/aggregated reference-based screening?

~~~
annawangx
Thanks for the question. Our process can plug in during the resume screen or
after an initial screen. Once the references are completed, we provide high
level summaries and recommendations for which candidates have the strongest
fit for the position. This gives the hiring manager better data while still
saving time. The full references are available if the hiring manager wants to
dive deeper.

These recommendations are based on on both quantitative ratings and open-ended
questions like working style and ideal environment. We do use tools to help
automate the recommendation calculation, but also currently human QA because
we want to get these recommendations right when we're early-stage.

------
jchallis
I can find 10 people to say nearly anything I want them to on my behalf.
Whatever the job requires, they will say I have it. Whatever competency is
required, I nail it. Whatever cultural fit is required, I blend into it.

Taking my own example, the signal to noise would be difficult for an employer
to separate from my own (equally glowing) LinkedIn profile.

~~~
annawangx
The references submitted to Searchlight are saved and available for the
candidate to use and share, and referencers are not asked to speak to a
particular culture. This means that the references don't change per position,
which makes sense because a candidate's top strengths/personality shouldn't
change for every potential employer.

------
claudeomusic
Best of luck! Just went through a lot of interviews with a number of
engineering companies before finally settling on an offer, and can strongly
agree a more human approach is sorely needed. I get that there is a strong
fear of hiring under-qualified candidates, but the true cost is a loss of
perspective on long-term hiring.

~~~
annawangx
Thanks for sharing your experience. We've found the fear of hiring under-
qualified candidates is one of the primary reasons why hiring managers screen
out candidates without recognizable line items on their resume.

By re-humanizing this process and getting better data around a candidate, we
hope that hiring managers will qualify more diverse candidates and think more
long-term.

------
hluska
I have nothing useful to add, though I do have two things to praise.

First, your write up is excellent and you have a good story. I genuinely wish
you the best.

And second, the way you have been responding to feedback here is absolutely
incredible. I'm both humbled and inspired by it. Great work!

Keep kicking ass and best of luck!!

~~~
annawangx
Thank you!!!

------
mykowebhn
Isn't this like trying to solve the fake review problem, but for the hiring
community? What differentiators does Searchlight bring to the table that would
help it solve this problem, where countless bigger companies have failed?

I don't see anything in your literature that gives me confidence that your
offering will be a game-changer.

Language like the following doesn't help:

> Our recommendations for strong candidates are based on a mix of quantitative
> factors like average ratings of core competencies, and qualitative factors
> like work style and environmental fit

~~~
annawangx
Validating the references are a top priority for us. By anchoring the
reference to a job context and verifying the referencer through work emails or
Linkedin profiles, we hope to address most of the fake review problems. This
is a feature that we will develop further as we grow.

------
ilaksh
I think it's great you are doing something different. What I will say is that
for many jobs or contracts I have had, the performance report given in the
middle would be extremely positive, but then at the end when we had a
disagreement or I had decided there was a better opportunity, it would be
negative because I was giving them extra work to replace me. I am sure I am
not the only one.

So I think that you may have trouble getting really objective evaluations of
performance.

~~~
annawangx
Thanks for sharing your experience. That will help us with product development
as we think about how to support other use cases when people request
references, even when they're not actively job-seeking.

------
sfranklin
"We'd love to hear about your experiences in today's hiring process and if
Searchlight would be helpful to you! Thanks for reading."

This isn't a "hair on fire" problem for me. Perhaps your report would nudge me
towards interviewing 1-in-5 candidates who I would have otherwise rejected at
CV screen. If I want to judge past performance, I'll interview them.

Good luck!

~~~
annawangx
Thanks for the feedback! We find that Searchlight is most helpful for hiring
managers who are time-strapped and have high inbound applicants. We realize
that this may lean more towards non-technical, early to mid-level roles more
so than engineers.

------
quadcore
I'm the type of candidate you describe, I think. I'm concerned. Does the
average hiring manager wants a good candidate or a candidate who makes him
look good? The way I see it, it's mostly the former, even with people I
respect for their honesty. How can you make a hiring manager want a good
candidate -- assuming he unconsciously think this is not the best option? I
have a partial answer: every single one of my managers got promoted, mostly
because of my results. In the long term, good employees are obviously better
for everybody but the fool doesn't know it. Which makes me think that, when
they got promoted, that's when I want them to talk about me and capture that
in your thing.

A manager promotion, maybe, is a key moment. Because at that moment, some will
think twice before forgetting the guys who got them promoted. At that moment,
I wish I could have got to them with your form.

~~~
annawangx
Thanks for sharing! We think more about capturing reference feedback outside
of the active job-seeking context.

------
DanFeldman
This is very cool, shared with my team. I am worried about bias in the results
questionnaire - both biased against and biased towards the candidate. How do
you plan to avoid extremely damaging and false information from getting in?
One bad review is now a black spot on a candidate. Dipping into black-mirror
rating territory...

~~~
Konnstann
From what I read you invite people to comment, so you would only invite people
who would speak to your strengths. This still leaves positive bias but that's
inherent in reference checks because you choose the reference.

~~~
sokoloff
You would imagine this to be the case, but I've definitely been asked to serve
as a reference by people who should have no rational reason to think I'd be
able to speak positively about their employment. In those situations, I've
always declined, indicating I was not comfortable and suggested that they use
HR instead to validate their dates of employment here.

~~~
annawangx
Thanks for sharing your approach. We give references on Searchlight the option
to decline for this reason.

------
sfilargi
Last week I had an epiphany about why I do so bad in interviews. Lately I have
been getting into playing holdem poker online, and I decided to go to a live
casino and see how that would feel.

While there I was as stressed as I am during an interview. When I got into a
hand and one of the players raised my bet, I found myself unable to do the
basic arithmetic operation of subtracting my initial bet from his raise to
figure out how much more I should add to the pot. Even when I was told the
amount from the dealer, I was still unable to calculate how many chips that
would be.

The feeling was exactly like the one I have when interviewing, my brain is so
stunned that is unable to do any thinking at all.

------
pault
How do you plan on handling "voting rings" where people all vouch for each
other?

~~~
annawangx
We're aware of this possibility, and we flag it to the candidates and the
employers.

------
proc0
The problem with systems like this is that your success rate is based on
quantity of data, and not quality. The more data you have on a candidate, the
more likely that candidate will move forward. This shifts the focus from
knowing the job, to polishing your profile.

Simply put, your "performance gauge" as a programmer is directly correlated to
your knowledge and expertise, NOT to how well you are at updating your profile
and recommendations.

To me this is primary problem of hiring websites at the moment. It creates a
sort of game that you can then get better at (but which I don't care for, and
unfortunately creating a disadvantage for myself).

~~~
annawangx
From the references that have come through our system, we’ve seen that
quantity doesn’t outweigh quality. We’ll make sure that this stays true as we
grow. Our goal is to elevate candidates who aren’t self-promotional through
the feedback collected on Searchlight.

------
thekhatribharat
> _This disadvantages people who aren 't good at promoting themselves, or
> don't like to, and these are often the best candidates!_

...

> _Job-seekers can invite as many advocates as they want to speak to their
> accomplishments and capabilities (some invite as many as 10!). The
> references share feedback like specific examples of how the candidate
> demonstrated desired competencies and how future managers can set the
> candidate up for success._

Why do you think folks who aren't good at self-promotion would be adept at
inviting advocates to speak to their achievements? Moreover, LinkedIn has a
'recommendations' feature to cover this.

~~~
kerryxwang
Giving references is an established part of the hiring process, so we believe
that folks who don't want to promote themselves in other ways will be
comfortable giving their references to their prospective employers earlier.
Reference feedback collected on Searchlight is not public.

~~~
thekhatribharat
Isn't that biased too? You always have some people who think you're good at
your job and some people who think you're not. A job-seeker would only seek
recommendations from people s/he believes think highly of them.

------
tfehring
I don't use LinkedIn, but I know it has a feature called "endorsements" that
does materially the same thing as this, and my understanding is that those
endorsements aren't taken all that seriously. What makes these more credible?

Also, looking at your landing page, it looks like this is company-driven, not
candidate driven (that is, I send my resume to the company, which sends it to
Searchlight). If I'm in the early stages of the interview process for a
company, and they request that I invite a bunch of former coworkers to endorse
me on a platform I've barely heard of, there's basically 0 chance that I'll be
continuing the application process.

~~~
sokoloff
> those endorsements aren't taken all that seriously

I've only ever heard them mentioned in a work situation in the context of
endorsing people for bogus things (like a hard-core C/C++ programmer for PHP
and Visual Basic).

~~~
jedberg
You can get endorsed for murder. It's supposed to be for lawyers who
specialize in murder cases, but the tag just says "murder". I currently have
three endorsements for murder.

~~~
jhare
Now I have to get this.

------
topkai22
Many employers, including mine, have "no reference" policies in place (its a
legal thing). It's this an issue you've encountered?

~~~
annawangx
We haven't run into many causes where a referencer's employer has a "no
reference" policy. Our terms and conditions has language that the reference's
opinion does not reflect their employer, but we will continue thinking about
this as we develop our product.

------
softwarerero
In 1016 I worked for [https://workgrades.com](https://workgrades.com). This
sounds pretty similar.

~~~
shafyy
Did you go to work with your horse in 1016?

PS: I know that I'm probably getting downvoted for this, but sometimes we also
need to have fun on here, no?

------
parthchoudhary
Can't go back from:
[https://www.searchlight.ai/candidate/login](https://www.searchlight.ai/candidate/login)
by pressing the back button, redirects me back to the same page.

~~~
annawangx
Sorry to hear about the trouble! We'll address that soon.

------
treis
Who "owns" my recommendations? In other words, once someone gives me a
recommendation can I send it to whomever whenever I want or does a company
have to pay to see it?

~~~
annawangx
Candidates can invite other employers to view their Searchlight
recommendations. We haven't yet decided on the revenue model for this use
case.

~~~
treis
There's probably mutually exclusive options here. Either I can send my
recommendations to anyone or recommendations stay private. If I can send them
to anyone, I can send them to myself and read the report.

------
awad
Is it just me or is the site not loading for anyone else?

------
massivecali
This sounds like a recipe for being sued. You're maintaining a record based on
potential libel and slander.

------
citilife
The "sample" button at the bottom doesn't work.

~~~
annawangx
Sorry to hear you're having trouble - it should work now

------
ben_jones
Wait aren't Resumes just statements of past performances? Also where does A.I.
come into this? By having a .ai domain you're clearly advertising to have a
Machine Learning product of some sort.

~~~
annawangx
Resumes are statements of past performances, and our mission at Searchlight is
to help candidates gather support around these statements.

AI helps us analyze the references, and will be developed more as we grow.

------
Alexbouaziz1
Love it! We'll try it out :)

------
ronilan
Clickable link: [https://www.searchlight.ai](https://www.searchlight.ai)

~~~
dang
Fixed above. Thanks!

------
Zelmor
This is what references are for.

