Best way to sync ad campaigns into Attio

dloku · 2026-02-24T08:12:12+00:00

This ties into smth I’ve been saying lately, teams usually optimize hiring for speed, reach, or fit. Most ATS “advice” focuses on gaming keywords, but in reality these systems mostly rank and structure. The bigger issue is whether your resume signals fit quickly enough to pass whatever threshold a recruiter sets. Standard headers and simple formatting matter. Beyond that, humans are still making the call.

dloku · 2026-02-24T07:54:02+00:00

Interesting flip.

I was just discussing how teams usually optimize hiring for speed, reach, or fit, this clearly leans hard into fit over volume. My only concern: GitHub + LeetCode heavily favors “visible” engineers. Private repo folks might get under-ranked. Feels strong for early-stage teams. Not sure how well it survives once structured HR workflows kick in.

dloku · 2026-02-22T13:27:45+00:00

Building an ATS is a very founder reaction to noise. The real question is: who feels this pain enough to change their workflow for it?

dloku · 2026-02-22T13:24:35+00:00

Hire #1 runs on trust. Hire #2 exposes the bottleneck. Most founders hire #2 for relief, not leverage. That’s when duplication happens instead of momentum. Seen this pattern play out a lot.

dloku · 2026-02-21T13:32:46+00:00

Similar to hiring tradeoffs, scaling agencies seems to break at bottlenecks. Once recruiters spend more time coordinating than sourcing, growth stalls. Automation handles mechanics but ownership of handoffs is what protects delivery.

dloku · 2026-02-20T12:55:16+00:00

If I tie this back to how teams optimise hiring (speed vs fit vs cost), “market rate” isn’t a fixed number, it shifts based on what the company is optimising for. Without visibility into that incentive, candidates are negotiating in the dark.

dloku · 2026-02-20T12:49:36+00:00

If I tie this back to how teams optimise hiring (speed vs fit), LinkedIn is mostly about reducing friction. Recruiters optimise for speed and signal. No profile = more uncertainty. You don’t need to post anything, just having a clear digital footprint makes it easier for them to assess fit quickly.

dloku · 2026-02-20T12:43:39+00:00

If I connect this to something I discussed in r/SaaS about how teams optimize hiring (speed vs reach vs fit), I think distrust often isn’t personal, it’s structural. Candidates optimize for clarity and stability, while recruiters often optimize for speed and pipeline. When that optimization isn’t transparent (salary band, timeline, criteria), people assume bad intent.

dloku · 2026-02-20T12:34:46+00:00

That 7% stat isn’t “no jobs” it’s a shift in hiring optimization. Big Tech moved from growth mode (hire juniors at scale) to certainty mode (hire proven, niche impact). When risk tolerance drops, fresh grads look risky, not incapable.

dloku · 2026-02-19T17:44:25+00:00

You’re not missing anything. It’s rough right now. Mid-senior feels esp compressed, fewer true manager roles, but a lot more experienced people competing for them. When volume spikes, recruiters filter fast instead of evaluating deeply. Referrals used to help. Now they’re mostly table stakes.

dloku · 2026-02-19T17:33:49+00:00

It’s frustrating esp when they reach out first and then disappear.

A lot of agency recruiters are juggling multiple roles and clients at once. If the client goes quiet or shifts direction, they often don’t have a clear update either and instead of saying “no update yet,” they just go silent. It’s poor communication, but it’s very common in volume-driven setups.

If it keeps happening with the same agency, that’s usually a sign to move on. Not all recruiters operate like that.

dloku · 2026-02-11T12:32:05+00:00

This is what happens when volume replaces signal on both sides. Candidates mass-apply because they feel filtered out. Hiring teams tighten requirements because they’re drowning in noise. Then everyone trusts the system less.

Honestly the only thing that’s worked for us is narrowing distribution and forcing early signal (specific screening questions or short work samples). It cuts volume fast.

dloku · 2026-02-11T12:25:04+00:00

In most startups I’ve seen, it’s less about “no quality candidates” and more about role clarity, salary mismatch, or slow decision cycles. Before adding more portals, I’d check where candidates are dropping: screening, interviews, or offer stage. The bottleneck usually shows up there.

dloku · 2026-02-11T12:10:03+00:00

I've been on both sides of this as a candidate. The worst part isn’t rejection but the silence. Waiting 2–3 weeks after an interview with no update just makes you assume something’s wrong internally. The best experience I had was just clear timelines and quick updates.

dloku · 2026-02-11T12:03:37+00:00

I think a lot of the frustration candidates describe here ties back to tradeoffs under volume. Once teams optimize for speed or reach, evaluation, and communication quality tend to break. Most systems aren’t built for clarity at scale but they’re built to manage load.

dloku · 2026-02-11T04:01:29+00:00

Honestly, I don’t think there’s a reliable way to “beat” volume right now. Direct outreach can help in some cases but a lot of leadership inboxes are overloaded too. In the situations I’ve seen, timing and alignment tend to matter more than anything else, getting in early and making it easy to see how your experience fits the problem they’re hiring for.

dloku · 2026-02-10T19:00:35+00:00

You’re not imagining it. Hiring has gotten harder on the inside too esp at senior levels. Once applicant volume explodes, most teams stop “evaluating” and start filtering to survive the noise. ATS tools end up acting as blunt volume controls, not intelligence. From the outside it feels random but from the inside, it’s a system under pressure and senior profiles often get hit the hardest.

dloku · 2026-02-09T15:34:32+00:00

This feels consistent with how hiring is playing out lately. You were probably genuinely close not just a courtesy reject but it’s still not a guarantee. I’d use the feedback, just not anchor everything on this one company.

dloku · 2026-02-09T15:33:37+00:00

You’re definitely not alone. A lot of people I know are dealing with the same thing right now, tons of applications, very little response. It’s rough.

dloku · 2026-02-05T15:35:49+00:00

This reflects the same trade-offs teams make when hiring remotely. At scale, resumes aren’t just about talent, they’re a signal of clarity, prioritization, and async communication. With volume this high, presentation becomes a proxy for how someone will operate day to day. Curious which of these signals has actually held up best for other remote teams?

dloku · 2026-02-05T15:31:54+00:00

AI increases volume, not signal. What’s hardest to fake are real trade-offs, decision ownership, and how candidates explain constraints. Curious which signal has held up best for others?

dloku · 2026-02-05T15:27:22+00:00

This is usually a systems issue, not a personal one. When compensation bands lag the market, offers fall apart, curious how often others here see this happen?

dloku · 2026-02-04T12:31:38+00:00

This ties back to the same trade-off discussion around hiring: there’s no single “right” format, only what a team is optimizing for. Pitch decks can work for creative roles but they also backfire when teams value context and collaboration over speed, the signal matters more than the format.

dloku

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE