This is a smart idea. A lot of the best startups are using recruiters (who can get $30k or more per hire). The noise level will be a LOT higher than a recruiter, but it might be worth it. Hopefully Rand will write a post-mortem on this.
I can definitely do that. As of 2 hours after the post, we've had a good number of referrals and 3 applicants. Jobvite's system does a good job of storing lots of interesting data, so hopefully I can share metrics in a follow-up.
Generates buzz for your startup, costs less and doesn't involve recruiters. Sounds like a lot of positive. I'd also like to hear about SEOmoz's experience after they fill the positions.
I don't claim to fully understand the challenges of a startup hiring the right folks, but recruiters just leave a bad taste in my mouth. Often they use questionable tactics and you know they are costing the startup a lot of money.
In a vacum ignorant of the realities of the real world, I wish there was a way to rate engineers and startups on all the key factors. For a startup: compensation, prestige, work environment, meeting/working with great people and for engineers: quality of work, ability to get things done, working well with others, etc. The problem of course is that getting a truthful and accurate value for each these factors is almost impossible.
Recruiters raise signal to noise ratio? All I ever hear is how they horribly fudge resumes and job posts in order to make applicant and company interested in each other and get their fee.
At Fairfax Digital we frequently use bounties for positions like search marketers, UX people or mobile app devs. $5K + an iPad works really well. We've had tremendous success from internal referrals via this method. It makes most sense when hiring in industries with a low average tenure but trying to fill more esoteric roles.
