tavoyne

Agreed. We've just added that to our roadmap—thanks!

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.

Nope, not static, you can run apps on CF Workers.

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.

Was it that slow? I think the DB got overwhelmed yesterday due to traffic.

I used to host everything on Fly, but I switched to CF Workers because of that.

I guess it's struggling with the load. Fly doesn't auto-scale by default.

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.

> 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.

The landing page is inspired by Linear and Apple, which are indeed very common sources of inspiration, especially for dev tools

> 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.

Fair point. LinkedIn doesn't let you access users' experiences, but we're about to add an option for scraping them.

> Date picker is bugged, Aug 2018 converts to Jul 2018

Yeah, my bad. We identified the pb and are fixing it.

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.

That's because it's the most accurate way to phrase it for candidates. We also state clearly in the FAQ on the front page how we make money.

You mean the app or the landing? The landing has been designed by a professional designer, and the app is heavily shadcn-inspired (shadcn.com).

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.

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.

Fair enough. It actually defaults to a text input expecting a YYYY-MM date if you disable JavaScript, so it shouldn't take long to implement.

Yes, that's the reason. The auth provider (Clerk) marks it as disposable and won't accept it. I'll see if there's a way around it.

No, you're right. It's in the roadmap to add that image picker.

I've just identified what's causing the date discrepancy. Will fix it now

Weird... Can you send me your email at theophile@candix.com so I can check what happened?

The LinkedIn API, weirdly, requires that scope in order to retrieve the profile image. We won't, of course, post anything or act in any way on your behalf. I'm actively trying to find a way around requiring that scope

Preventing fake profiles is indeed challenging. We manually review every profile to ensure they are legitimate. We also offer everyone who signs up the opportunity to participate in a quick, optional interview (10-15 minutes). This allows us to refine the profile data with the individual and add a summary. We also use this to mark profiles as "verified," which ultimately makes them rank significantly higher. However, that approach is far from perfect. We need to add proper verification, but I’d hate to have something like LinkedIn, scanning your ID and all. Maybe we could integrate with an IdP that performs this check in a privacy-friendly way.

> integration with major competition platforms to import one's stats

That's an awesome idea. The tricky part is making sure candidates truly own these accounts.

Thanks for your encouragements!!