

“Good On Video” Is The New “Good On Paper” With HireHive (YC S10) - nicholasjbs
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/02/good-on-video-is-the-new-good-on-paper-with-ycombinators-hirehive-and-ycommonapp/

======
old-gregg
I don't know either this is good for employers/customers but one thing for
sure: this makes me feel even more terrified of failure, of becoming a
"candidate" again. This company is making the world even more hostile for
people who need jobs for reasons stated here by others.

Let me explain: my wife is looking for a job now. She's not an engineer so the
progress has been slow: hundreds of resumes emailed, no response, constant
thoughts like "something's wrong with my resume??". Now you're telling me that
she needs to sit down and _film herself hundreds of times and then stare at
the empty inbox and think "something's wrong with the way I look/talk?"_
That's just disgusting.

~~~
pg
In-person interviews have an even worse problem: if your wife is rejected
after one of those, she has to worry not merely that she looks lame in a
video, but seems lame in person. But you don't find the concept of interviews
disgusting, presumably because it is already a familiar one. Which suggests
that your real problem with this technology is its novelty.

~~~
Tichy
Personally, I just don't like the way I look on videos. I think it is harder
to make a good impression on video. I acknowledge that I might look as weird
in RL as on video, but in RL I can decide not to think about it.

Anyway, I can imagine this video thing taking off, unless there are legal
problems. Don't know why, but I think in the uk you are not supposed to
include photograps with applications. Perhaps to prevent racism?

~~~
notahacker
Photos are probably frowned on to discourage racism, ageism and the good old
fashioned "we'll only invite the pretty ones in for interview". It's also
common practice to remove date of birth from CVs.

It's more a case of being considered inappropriate than legal barriers...a
friend of mine recruiting abroad found the idea of attached photos nearly as
amusing as the adjacent salary demands.

I think that the video thing will suffer more from being considered a bit odd
or time consuming compared with skimming through text, especially for large
non-creative employers looking to fill a quota. On the other hand, webcam
interviews could start to replace the first-stage phone interview.

------
rdl
Maybe I'm just paranoid and have low expectations for humanity, but I think
the main demand for video interviews would be to do
racial/ethnic/attractiveness discrimination on candidates. Early in the
process, it would be a lot easier to discard all people of [unfavored group]
without any allegations of unfairness.

~~~
kiba
Bad discrimination will cost the company lot of money. Good discrimination
will make the company lot of money.

If a company discriminate based on race, they will get the kind of performance
they deserve.

~~~
coryl
I'm perplexed by your statement about there being "Good" and "Bad"
discrimination. In this context, discrimination means judging someone based on
their looks or other visible features from their video. If nobody believes
they should be judged by whether they're male/female, minorities, religious,
attractive/ugly, etc., why would there ever be "Good" discrimination?

~~~
rdl
I can think of some (admittedly contrived) scenarios where being allowed to
discriminate on illegal-in-the-US traits would be beneficial to the company.
For instance, I think women would be much more willing to buy undergarments
from women than (especially, unattractive) men. There are definitely people
with a preference about the sex of their doctor. There are lots of documented
studies about attractive people being more successful in management and sales,
so especially if the hire is viewed as a long-term career move, hiring an
unattractive person might be objectively inferior.

There are specific, legal, questions you could ask which would be ok ("how
many years of experience do you have with bras?", various technical questions,
etc.) which might correlate highly with certain physical characteristics.

I think there is a moral argument against discrimination on these grounds, but
there's also an argument for letting companies make their own decisions.

Even without legal prohibitions on discrimination, I wouldn't want to create a
workplace where this kind of discrimination happened -- even if it were good
for a specific job, it would also drive away other candidates for other jobs,
and I think the net loss would be greater.

------
warpwoof
My initial response is definitely skeptical. If I'm asked to record a video
for an interview question, I'm going to write down my answer first, and then
read it in a casual way.

You're going to be judging my skill at speaking into a little square at the
top of a computer. I hope this isn't treated as a tool to judge interpersonal
skills.

What value is added, beyond making it easier to dismiss people based on
appearance and personal preferences? I guess judging based on a perceived
personality is kosher, but let's be realistic about the purpose here.

I think a live video-call is totally fair-game, but something about this
definitely rubs me the wrong way.

~~~
nicholasjbs
I appreciate your skepticism :) We think there's actually a lot you can learn
about someone by watching and listening to them speak, particularly when
they're talking about what they're passionate about or why they want to work
at your company.

Another advantage is that, for some people at least, it's a lot easier to just
record yourself speaking for 60 seconds than to write a cover letter (which
have become engineered to point of being pretty bland, IMHO).

~~~
ktsmith
There's also the exact opposite issue for some people. I don't really have a
problem opening up or making a personal connection in person. I cringe hearing
or seeing myself on video. I can't stand it, even if I'm seeing a video of my
son and I playing which I love. A company requiring a video recording as part
of the application process would be an instant pass for me since you wouldn't
be getting me, you'd be getting the extremely uncomfortable self conscious
version of me.

~~~
orangecat
Ditto. This strikes me as great for extroverts and terrible for introverts.

~~~
nitrogen
By nature I'm somewhat of an introvert, so I have to apply a conscious effort
to speak out at parties and other social events. I see this as a great excuse
for myself and others like me to keep practicing and improving. The fact that
your personality type is "introverted" doesn't mean you actually have to
remain an introvert.

------
paraschopra
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.

~~~
Harj
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.

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

why?

~~~
pg
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.

~~~
jpeterson
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.

~~~
pg
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.

~~~
hackinthebochs
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.

~~~
pg
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.

------
bmcnamara82
Great job on charging for service right out of the gate.

My assumption would be that someone with a flair for showmanship can excel at
this even if they are a mediocre performer. However, I could see this being
useful for real time.

------
cglee
The skeptical comments are interesting. But it doesn't seem like they are the
primary market.

At Active Interview, we've been doing video interviews for a while now. We've
gotten good traction among organizations who have continuous hiring needs
and/or those who need to process candidates who are geographically dispersed.

For example, One Laptop per Child used Active Interview to screen a couple
hundred applicants from around the world. They used us to test:

1\. interpersonal skills & communication

2\. language proficiency

How much time/money would it cost to coordinate and phone screen everyone?

We've also gotten a lot of interest from academic organizations, who need to
process applicants every semester. We've especially been working with graduate
departments, like MBA programs, who have a high number of international
applicants. They use us because:

1\. Time shifting - it's difficult to set up a mutual time with candidates
around the world.

2\. Language - many international applicants have through the roof English
scores and can write like Steinbeck, but can't speak a lick.

3\. Normalize interviews - different recruiters assess candidates with varying
degrees of leniency. Active Interview lets the entire recruiting team view,
score and comment on every candidate response. The scores are tallied and
averaged.

4\. Most candidates like taking a video interview over writing yet another
essay.

I understand why some may be skeptical, but there's definitely a need for
video interviewing for some types of organizations and I'm glad Hirehive is
getting some publicity for all of us in this area.

~~~
rdl
I see the value for some jobs, but audio seems like it is just as good as
video, much cheaper, less intrusive, and vastly more accessible.

~~~
cglee
This is almost a thing you have to see to believe. Video just gives you so
much more resolution and insight. Social science studies have told us many
times that 90% of communication is non-verbal - audio only captures that 10%.

Of course, nothing beats face to face, but it also comes at a cost (time,
money). We built Active Interview to help those who need to quickly process a
large number of applicants at as high of a resolution as possible.

~~~
notahacker
Out of curiosity as much as anything else since you've quite possibly done the
research, how much of that 90% of communication is reciprocal (body language
towards interviewer, instinctive reaction to questions)?

------
rdl
I think realtime interaction is the key element missing from most early-stage
screenings, not video. I'd rather have an IM/irc/voice chat with someone,
propose problems, and observe how he tries to solve the problem, than canned
and rehearsed video clips. The only job for which I'd consider a canned video
clip to be really useful is a job which requires producing canned video clips.

~~~
cglee
I don't think anything is stopping you from using IM/irc/chat. The problem
that video screenings solve isn't one that you face.

For example, Thunderbird School of Global Management, a top international MBA
program, is planning on using Active Interview as part of their admissions
process. They're letting applicants answer a video questionnaire to replace 1
of 3 essays. It's purely optional. They have a full admission team of 10+
people, working full time traveling around the world screening applicants.
Using a tool like AI saves tons of time and money in the early screening
stages. Unless you are a organization like that, you won't truly feel the pain
that Active Interview or Hirehive solves.

------
jagjit
The idea is scary at first. But really makes sense once you think about it. I
agree, it makes the screening process more human.

I know the job market is not good right now for job seekers to be chosers, but
if I have to apply with a video, I would feel more up to it if I see the
hiring team's or manager's video too.

------
sabj
"the higher bandwidth of video provides more information than text, which
results in better informed hiring decisions"

Not sure about this. Generally, I'm uncomfortable with all the room for
discrimination that something like video brings into play -- even if it isn't
intentional.

See the case of orchestra auditions where female players did tremendously
better when judged from behind a screen, gender being removed from the
equation. Even if people feel unbiased about a lot of roles, they might still
have them play out... ???

That, and I just think so many video things like this end up gimmicky. I can
see it well applied, and also easily misused.

------
shelly
This is actually a terrific idea... for applicants who are good on camera.

I instantly get deer-in-headlightsy and stiff when the camera starts rolling,
so a potential employer wouldn't get an accurate read on me.

~~~
nicholasjbs
Can you think of anything that would help you relax so you could be your true
self?

~~~
exit
i sincerely hope your startup fails. i simply do not want to live in a world
in which an expectation of passively recorded videos "scales".

------
betterlabs
I think most candidates who are good will find this to be way too much work to
prove their point. They won't do it. Secondly, depending on the job a lot of
people may get disqualified just because they seem lame on video, though they
are stellar at what they do.

But as an idea, I like it for its novelty. The jobs space is broken in many
ways and this is worth a shot. Just don't think it will work for every job
type. For hiring at Crate & Barrel or Starbucks perhaps.

------
dannyr
There is a startup called SayHired.com that does something similar but just
audio. They found a niche with call center agents.

I'm not entirely sold yet that this is good for hiring developers since some
of us are probably not comfortable talking on video.

Maybe the niche for this service is for hiring receptionists or
sales/marketing people.

~~~
nicholasjbs
We're still figuring out the full range of positions HireHive works best for.
We agree that receptionists, sales/marketing people, customer service, etc are
good fits for the service and have had positive feedback from them so far.

Thanks for the pointer to SayHired!

------
dpritchett
I'd love to hear jl's take on this since she's YC's character appraisal
specialist. Do these videos help her with that?

------
xsive
So it's not enough that I spend hours working and tailoring my CV and cover
letter for every job application and hours more writing answers to selection
critera.

Now you want me to record and produce a video selling myself? Hah! Good luck
with that.

------
MichaelGlass
I wonder how many of these comments are based on experience hiring. The
challenge isn't from the applicant's standpoint but from the other end.
Certainly video can be used for discrimination. But that is absolutely not the
only use case.

~~~
rdl
I have hired for or at 5 companies so far.

I've never used video, and I have hired people based solely on phone
conversations, or IRC conversations -- but usually phone/irc followed by an
in-person interview.

I can't think of any value of recorded video over realtime chat for anything
except "create a video clip for me!" For a sales job involving in-person
meetings with clients, a realtime video chat might be a bit better than
realtime audio, but the difference is much less than the value of an in-person
meeting.

For a developer job, I would consider this totally without value. "IM
presence" and "how well can he explain something in words" (voice or text)
would be worth vastly more, and "sit next to me and do this task and explain
it to me" would be the ultimate test.

~~~
nicholasjbs
The response we've heard so far is that companies have found the videos to be
quite helpful. We don't see them as a replacement for the entire hiring
process, and certainly for hiring developers it's still important to do in-
person interviews, have them write code (which they can also do using
HireHive, since we support multiple types of responses, not just videos), etc.

~~~
rdl
If you could be a framework for any kind of question/response (and I think
timed and interactive would be a plus), that would be great. If you could then
make the "grading and evaluation" workflow on the employer side support
routing through subject matter experts, a prospective team, manager, etc.,
based on either employer-specified rules, or some kind of policies which you
suggest and which can be tweaked, I would probably use this, even without ever
using the video portion.

~~~
nicholasjbs
We support questions with a few different types of answers (video, short,
medium and long text responses, file uploads).

We're working on the grading/evaluation features on the employer-side right
now. This is something we're excited about, because it allows for more people
to give input in the hiring process and opens up the possibility for
coordination among companies as we're doing with the YCommonApp.

Always happy to hear what real people find useful :) Feel free to email me
(nick [at] hirehive.com) if have you any other suggestions or questions if you
try out the service.

~~~
rdl
Time limits per question or per questionnaire would be useful. There are
really two reasons: 1) Intelligence (and often job performance) is measured by
how fast a problem can be solved. Within limits, it doesn't matter, and often
a better solution that takes slightly longer to come up with is better
overall. However, for a problem which is bounded in difficulty (such that a
normal job applicant willing to put 2 hours into the interview could answer
everything), being able to solve the problem in 24h vs. 2h is not really a
good thing.

2) It's a lot harder to "cheat" on a realtime exam, especially on video. The
purpose of the interview is to evaluate a candidate, and it's unlikely that
candidate's much smarter (or paid) friend would be part of the long-term
package, but it's entirely possible someone could be getting assistance during
the interview. (it's basically like when a law or consulting firm sends a
partner to win the business, and then has summer associates doing the actual
work once they're engaged...)

Assuming remote-interview-only, this would be a problem. Also, I view in-
person interviews as fundamentally somewhat random. If you really like a
candidate on paper (or on video), and he shows up and is close but not
necessarily 100%, a lot of interviewers are willing to explain away problems
as "he was nervous" or "having a bad day". Once an interviewer emotionally
bonds with a candidate, it's a lot harder to be objective -- this is why I
like to do early-stage objective/automatic screenings to determine basic
competence.

~~~
nicholasjbs
All good feedback. We've got time limits per questionnaire already, and I'll
add per-question limits to the list of feature requests.

------
kingkilr
I was considering a startup along exactly these lines within the last couple
of weeks, but for college applicants. I ended up not going forward as I wasn't
personally super interested, and the friend who had the original idea said
there appeared to be a patent covering it.

------
cal5k
The idea is actually a good one, but there is much talk of "killing"
Monster.com - what's to stop Monster.com from developing a similar scheme and
piloting it to its massive user base as soon as this idea catches on?

~~~
nicholasjbs
This is the problem every startup faces when going against established
competitors. We have to compete by focusing, working fast, and always doing
right by our users and customers :)

~~~
riffer
_This is the problem every startup faces when going against established
competitors._

Only if the technology is trivial

------
gigafemtonano
So it's a nock off of chatroulette with a business spin? How long will it take
until The Gap sees that 90% of their video applicants are actually dudes
wanking off?

