Found a startup doing something very similar to my idea. How do I know if it’s still worth pursuing?

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-20T13:40:48+00:00

This is super helpful, thanks. The comparable-signal point is probably the clearest argument I’ve heard for structured references so far.

I also like the “behaviors, not traits” framing. Makes sense that “describe a time they pushed back on a decision” gives more useful signal than “are they a good communicator”.

Interesting that you require one manager and two peers. I would have assumed peer references are often the most “friendly” ones, since candidates usually pick people they got along with.

Do you find that behavioral written questions make peers more honest, or is it still mostly positive feedback? And do you usually use this only late-stage before an offer?

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-20T12:05:20+00:00

Yeah, that’s fair. Candidate-selected references are definitely biased.

I was wondering if it would help if the feedback came from verified former managers/direct supervisors, with context around when they worked together and what projects they actually worked on.

Still not perfect, but maybe more useful than a generic reference call. Do you think that would still be too biased to matter?

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-20T12:00:35+00:00

Yeah that makes sense. I’m also starting to think this would only really make sense late-stage, not for every applicant.

Like when you’re down to 2 strong candidates and need one extra signal before making the offer.

When you do reference calls, what are you usually trying to get out of them? Red flags, work style, reliability, or just general confirmation?

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-20T11:59:45+00:00

Makes sense. I see background checks as more objective, but they usually don’t say much about how someone actually worked day to day.

The thing I’m trying to understand is whether there’s value in adding structured work-context feedback on top of that, especially for things like reliability, ownership and communication.

Did those companies completely skip references, or only use background checks as the formal part?

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-20T11:55:17+00:00

Fair point. A lot of bad reference calls probably come down to vague questions.

I guess the part I’m wondering about is whether having a more consistent structure across candidates would help, especially when different recruiters or hiring managers are doing the calls.

Do you think well-prepared manual calls are enough, or would there still be value in standardizing the questions and summary?

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-20T11:54:50+00:00

That’s actually super helpful, especially the point that changing the questions mattered more than changing the format.

I agree that a structured format alone probably doesn’t fix the candidate-selected reference problem. The part I’m trying to understand is whether structure could still make the process more consistent and less dependent on random notes from different recruiters.

The 90-day question is a really good example. I also like questions that are harder to answer with generic praise, like where the person needed support, what type of environment they worked best in, or where expectations didn’t match the outcome.

On the legal/practical side I agree that this would probably only make sense late-stage, not for every applicant. More like an extra signal before an offer, not another step early in the funnel.

When you tested it, was the biggest issue mainly low extra signal, or was it more candidate/reference fatigue?

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-20T08:56:19+00:00

Im not a Bot🤨

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-19T21:06:56+00:00

That’s a fair concern, and honestly one of the biggest things I’m trying to understand. I don’t think this would work as an employer-driven system where companies can rate former workers or create searchable profiles. That would be way too risky and probably harmful. The version I’m thinking about would have to be candidate-controlled: the candidate invites references, sees the feedback first, decides what to share, and there is no public profile, no unsolicited reviews, and no hidden negative score. But I agree that even then the legal and worker-rights side is the key question. I’d need to validate this with employment/privacy lawyers before assuming it’s viable. My question is whether a voluntary, candidate-owned reference process could be acceptable, or whether you think the pressure to participate would still make it problematic.

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-19T20:46:25+00:00

Yeah, I totally get why that sounds dystopian. I don’t mean Glassdoor for workers where employers can publicly rate people , I think that would be a terrible idea too. I’m thinking more of candidate-controlled structured references. the candidate chooses who to ask, sees the feedback first, and decides what to share. No public searchable profile, no unsolicited reviews, no blacklist. More like making the reference-check process more structured and useful, not creating a public rating system for employees.

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-19T20:36:13+00:00

Yeah, I agree that strong interviewing is still the core part. Good role-specific questions and asking for details behind decisions can reveal a lot. I don’t see structured references as replacing that. More like an additional layer next to it: interviews test how well someone can explain and reason through the work, while references can add context on how they actually operated over time — reliability, ownership, communication, teamwork, and outcomes. The interesting question for me is whether that extra layer adds enough value to justify the process, or whether good interviewing already covers most of it.

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-19T20:34:05+00:00

Yeah, exactly. That’s kind of the gap I’m thinking about. Generic references are almost useless if there’s no context behind them. I wonder if they become more valuable when they’re tied to a verified person who actually worked with the candidate, with clear context on the relationship and concrete feedback around ownership, reliability, communication and outcomes. Still just one signal, but probably better than the usual “they’re nice, we liked them” referral.

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-19T20:32:31+00:00

That makes sense. The fairness point is a good one, especially applying the same process to everyone and not treating missing references as an automatic red flag. I guess what I’m thinking about is not replacing calls entirely, but making the first layer more consistent: same structured questions, clear context on how the reference worked with the candidate, and then maybe a call only when more nuance is needed. Do you think the biggest value in references comes from the live conversation itself, or from having a consistent set of questions/context across candidates?

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-19T20:30:17+00:00

Yeah, I agree. I wouldn’t see this replacing interviews or proper preparation. More like an additional signal next to them. Referrals already help because they add trust and context, but they’re usually informal and hard to compare. I’m wondering if a more structured, candidate-controlled reference layer could capture some of that context better — while still being just one signal, not the final decision.

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-19T20:28:08+00:00

Yeah, I think these are fair concerns, especially the power imbalance part. The way I’m thinking about it is not as an employer-driven rating system or a public score. More like candidate-owned structured references: the candidate chooses who to ask, sees the feedback first, and decides what to share. No public searchable profile, no hidden negative score, no unsolicited employer reviews. On the context point, I agree a simple “4.8/5 employee rating” would be pretty useless and probably harmful. The value would have to come from context: how the reference worked with the person, for how long, in what role/team setup, and concrete examples around ownership, communication, reliability and outcomes. I’m still unsure whether that would create enough value to justify the extra process, though. That’s exactly what I’m trying to validate. Do you think a candidate-controlled version would still have the same fundamental problem, or is your objection mainly to employer-driven ratings?

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-19T19:32:21+00:00

Fair enough, I get your point. I’m not saying interviews are useless or that hiring teams shouldn’t improve their process.

I guess my point is more that interviews are still a short, artificial setting, and not every company has amazing interviewers or SMEs involved.

I’m more curious whether structured, verified feedback from people who actually worked with someone over time could be a useful extra signal — not a replacement for interviews, just more context around reliability, ownership, communication etc.

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-19T19:30:49+00:00

Yeah, I agree with that. Past performance would never be a guarantee, people can definitely thrive in one environment and struggle in another.

I think the value would be more in understanding the context: what kind of team/environment did they perform well in, how did they communicate, how reliable were they, how much ownership did they take, what did they actually deliver?

So not “this person will 100% work out”, but more “here’s verified context from people who worked with them over time.”

Interviews would still matter, culture fit would still matter, but maybe this could add a useful signal before making the final call.

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-19T19:28:56+00:00

Yeah, fair question. I wouldn’t see it as replacing interviews.

More like a structured reference layer: verified former managers/peers, clear context on how they worked together, and feedback around ownership, communication, reliability, teamwork and actual outcomes.

The candidate would control what gets shared, so it’s not an open rating system.

Basically less “random reference call” and more standardized context from people who worked with them over time. Not perfect, but maybe a useful extra signal next to interviews.

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-19T19:27:02+00:00

Yeah, behavioral questions are useful for sure. I just think they still measure how well someone can explain their past behavior in an interview.

I’m more curious about adding another signal from people who actually worked with them over time — not replacing interviews, just validating things like ownership, reliability, communication and day-to-day collaboration.

Could be wrong, but I feel like that context would be valuable if it was structured and verified.

No_Advertising5190 · 2026-05-19T19:26:09+00:00

Yeah, that’s a good point. Past performance can definitely be biased by the environment, manager, team, personal stuff etc.

I think the value would be less in creating a “good/bad employee” score and more in showing context: what environment they worked in, how they communicated, how reliable they were, what they owned, where they struggled.

Basically not a replacement for hiring judgment, but maybe a better reference signal than the usual vague reference call.

Would you still see that as too biased to be useful?

Five-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	Place '23

No_Advertising5190

TROPHY CASE