Dave, that's reasonably accurate data. May I ask you where you got
it from?
As I mentioned, straight from the HackerRank leaderboard and FAQ.
"Fixing" these figures in some way is why we have hired dedicated
product
managers on the community side. I manage the enterprise side of the
business.
It's generally a good choice to be on the revenue side :-)
I totally agree with your point that it is important to understand
objectives of the users. At HackerRank we have our roots in the
competitive
programming world of IOI and ACM ICPC and the like. The demographic
and
retention characteristics are very different for that base. But the
real
volume opportunity is elsewhere - in the self learning crowd.
I'll probably be able to gel some thoughts that are actually more
useful than cynical on this front later.
For now, something to consider is the cyclical nature of tech
hiring. You'll probably always going to be able to place the
competitive programmers, although it may be easier or more difficult
depending upon the state of the global economy. Expect variance at
the volume end to be much higher: during boom times, I've heard jokes
about the "mirror test" — bring someone in for the interview, put a
mirror under their nose, and if it fogs up, hire them. Obviously
this swings in the opposite direction during busts.
-Dave
(OK, another general observation: for your roots, there is a simple
value proposition: community members get a chance to sharpen skills
(and advertise themselves if they are outsiders to the traditional
tech networks), and enterprises get much more information about their
prospects, information for which people used to be, and no doubt
still are, willing to pay substantial commissions. The volume is
probably not so interested in the direct economic value, but more in
a service: do they feel better about themselves after doing exercises
on HackerRank than after whatever their alternatives (yoga, etc.) may
be for limited leisure time. If one made an analogy of HackerRank as
a boxing gym, the former would self-identify as "boxing for
competition" and the latter as "boxing for fitness". I'd think it
would be difficult to cater to both groups with the same
organization, but according to recreation metrics, the boxing people
manage it. Somehow they are able to offer the seemingly self-
contradictory concept of "non-contact boxing"; so to go for volume
all you need to do is figure out what the equivalent might be ...
"frustration-free programming"?)
Of course I could be completely wrong ... what do our self learning
silk-listers think of all this? How long do you feel would be "too
long" to work on an exercise or a puzzle?
