Fair point. I don't think it's a big deal if early-stage companies turn their subscriptions on and off over time. That said, later-stage startups and larger companies tend to have ongoing needs.
For simplicity, and because our model doesn't rely on it, we don't track hires. I'm not a fan of credit-based pricing, as it tends to create friction in usage.
Bingo. Never thought it would get this popular and I am not using an architecture that autoscales elegantly. I'm adding more RAM and CPU cores to see if that helps.
> Funny that you have some R1 universities but not others
We don't do that on purpose. After you submit your profile, we sync the orgs with LinkedIn if they're missing. If you come back in a while they'll all be synced.
I created a profile all the same, I don't have high expectations, but that's the good thing right? 15 minutes out of my day to dump my profile on your website with information that was public anyway. Maybe something comes of it maybe it doesn't. As long as I'm not getting spammed by you in my email it'll have been a good balance between risk and pay off.
> 15 minutes out of my day to dump my profile on your website with information that was public anyway.
Yeah, I agree it's not ideal.
> As long as I'm not getting spammed by you [...]
No, we don't spam. No marketing emails of any sort. Only thing we ask is that you confirm monthly that your profile is still valid. It's one click from the email. You can opt out with one click too.
> [...] good balance between risk and payoff.
That's the idea. Once your profile is set up, there is nothing else you need to do. For many people on Candix, those few minutes spent on onboarding have well converted.
Sounds mostly like a regular job board, except the hard work of describing the job/vacancy is left to the candidate rather than the employer.
I somewhat dislike the idea that you're still essentially stuck with the recruiter in the middle. And I fear that like any other directory it quickly turns into a spam platform. Candidates bugged by unwanted phone calls, startups digging through piles of recommendations...
Have you checked the onboarding? It only asks for your preferences (specifically, type of contract, availability, salary, and location), not for a description of the job or vacancy.
I think all these "we regret to inform you" could be avoided. It has always felt weird to me that the burden of the search is on the candidates, although recruiters are doing the picking. It’s more efficient and less painful to just let people express their preferences and be applied to.
I've never really come across this kind of reasoning in practice, though. Companies that want the best candidates are more often than not keen to put in the work to get them.
Employers pay because it's not undifferentiated. It's confidential, and as such, it attracts passive candidates, which no other hiring platform apart from LinkedIn has managed to attract. Additionally, there is no oversupply of good candidates in tech, which is why recruiting spending is so high: it is costly to find them.
That's absolutely right. The problem can be mitigated by focusing on specific roles and locations, though. You don't need that many candidates if your client only hires SWEs in SF. Our approach is to capture a maximum number of companies per vertical before expanding.
