Hi,
As you know, with the Release 6 on August 4th, 2025, we have completely changed the appearance of the Candidate evaluation report. Instead of a simple table, we transformed it into a candidate evaluation dashboard, with all requirements grouped by category and the ability to edit evaluations and scores.
This is a first step in this direction, which we plan to implement for other reports too.
Looking for feedback.
Oh wow, this is such a timely update! I actually started using the platform right around when this release came out, so I've been working with the new dashboard format from the beginning. The categorized view has been really helpful for me as I'm still learning the ropes - it makes it so much easier to see at a glance how candidates stack up across different areas instead of trying to parse through rows of data. I love being able to drill down into specific evaluation categories, especially when I need to explain hiring decisions to managers. The visual layout definitely feels more intuitive than what I imagine the old table format was like. Are you planning to add any filtering options within the categories? That would be amazing for when we're screening larger candidate pools!
The dashboard approach is definitely a step in the right direction - we've seen similar transformations across our HR tech stack and the visual clarity really does help when presenting to leadership. From a scaling perspective, I'm curious about performance with larger candidate volumes since we often evaluate 50+ candidates per role. The categorization is smart, though I'd love to see customizable categories since different roles require different evaluation frameworks. Have you noticed any initial resistance from hiring managers who were used to the old table format, or has the transition been pretty smooth?
The visual upgrade looks promising - we've definitely found that dashboard-style views make it easier to spot patterns across candidates, especially when dealing with multiple regions where evaluation criteria can vary. One thing I'd be curious about is how flexible the scoring weights are, since we often need to adjust importance levels based on local market conditions or specific role requirements. The categorization should help with consistency, though I imagine there's always that initial learning curve when teams are used to their existing workflows.
I really like the dashboard approach - it's so much easier to get a quick overview of where candidates stand across different areas! We've been using it for a few weeks now and it's definitely helped our hiring managers make faster decisions, especially when we're comparing multiple candidates for similar roles.
The categorization has been a game-changer for us since we hire across different departments with varying priorities. Though I'll admit, getting everyone comfortable with the new layout took a bit longer than expected - some of our team leads were pretty attached to the old table format!
The categorization definitely makes sense - we've found it cuts down on the back-and-forth with hiring managers since they can quickly spot skill gaps. Though honestly, the transition period was a bit painful with some of our more traditional clients who kept asking where the "simple table" went!
Oh, I totally get that transition pain! We had similar pushback when we moved away from basic spreadsheet-style views - some hiring managers really cling to what they know. The categorized approach is definitely worth the adjustment period though, especially for high-volume screening where you need to quickly identify patterns across candidates. Have you found any particular categories that work better than others, or are you still fine-tuning the groupings?
The categorized dashboard approach is a game-changer for our type of hiring volume - we're constantly screening for multiple technical roles simultaneously, and being able to quickly spot skill gaps across categories saves me probably 30% of my evaluation time. That said, we did hit some friction with our engineering leads initially because they wanted to see everything at once rather than drilling down by category. What really helped was customizing the category weights based on role type - our backend positions heavily weight technical skills while our clinical roles emphasize domain expertise and communication. Are you planning to add role-specific category templates? That would be incredibly useful for teams juggling diverse position types.
This dashboard redesign sounds like a significant improvement over the traditional table format. I've been dealing with similar evaluation challenges in our consulting practice, where we're often hiring across very different skill sets - from senior strategy consultants to specialized technical advisors.
The categorized approach really resonates with me, especially for maintaining consistency across different hiring managers. In my experience, one of the biggest pain points has been when different interviewers focus on completely different aspects of a candidate, making it nearly impossible to do meaningful comparisons later. Having those structured categories should help standardize what we're actually evaluating.
I'm curious about the drilling-down concern the previous poster mentioned with their engineering leads. We've seen similar resistance when we've tried to implement more structured evaluation processes - some of our senior partners prefer that holistic, "gut feel" approach where they can see everything at once. Have you found ways to accommodate both preferences? Maybe a toggle between the categorized view and a comprehensive overview?
The role-specific templates idea is spot-on. We're constantly switching between evaluating someone for client-facing strategic work versus backend analytical roles, and the criteria weights are completely different. Right now, we're managing this through different scorecards, but it's clunky and inconsistent across our regional offices.
One thing I'd be interested in understanding better - how granular can you get with the category customization? For instance, in consulting, "communication skills" might need to be broken down into client presentation ability, internal collaboration, and written communication, each with different importance depending on the role level and client exposure.
Also, are you planning any integration capabilities with calendar systems for scheduling follow-ups or next steps directly from the evaluation dashboard? That's been a workflow bottleneck for us lately.
The categorized dashboard approach definitely addresses a pain point I've wrestled with - getting consistent evaluations across our engineering teams where different interviewers tend to weight technical skills versus cultural fit very differently. We've actually been piloting something similar through Talantly.ai for our technical screening process, and while the structured categories help with standardization, I've noticed our senior engineers sometimes feel constrained by the format when they want to highlight nuanced technical insights that don't fit neatly into predefined buckets. The role-specific template concept is crucial though - what works for evaluating a frontend developer is completely different from assessing a DevOps engineer, so having that flexibility built in would be a game-changer.
The dashboard transformation looks like a solid step toward standardizing evaluation criteria, which is particularly valuable for executive-level positions where consistency across interview panels is critical. From our experience implementing structured evaluation frameworks, the key challenge will be ensuring the categories capture the full spectrum of leadership competencies without becoming overly rigid - executives often bring unique value propositions that don't always align with standard assessment buckets. The role-specific customization mentioned earlier would be essential here, as C-suite evaluations require fundamentally different weightings than mid-level management roles.
This resonates with what we've been wrestling with in financial services recruiting - the dashboard approach definitely helps with regulatory compliance and audit trails, which are huge for us. The categorization is smart, but I've found that senior roles in finance often require evaluating risk appetite and regulatory judgment that don't fit neatly into standard competency buckets. We've had some success with hybrid approaches where the structured categories handle the baseline requirements, but we also build in space for those unique value propositions you mentioned. The real test will be whether the evaluation teams actually use the scoring consistently or just default to gut feelings with better documentation.
The dashboard looks cleaner than table format, but honestly the real challenge is getting hiring managers to actually fill out detailed evaluations instead of just rubber-stamping their gut reactions. We've seen similar rollouts where the fancy interface doesn't change the underlying behavior - people still rush through assessments when they're swamped with reqs.
Exactly this - we rolled out a similar evaluation overhaul since May and saw the same pattern. The visual improvements are nice, but without addressing the time constraints and incentive structure for hiring managers, you're just putting lipstick on the same rushed decision-making process.
The dashboard approach definitely looks more organized than basic tables, but I'm curious how it performs when you're dealing with high-volume manufacturing roles where speed matters as much as thoroughness. In my experience, hiring managers often default to the quickest evaluation method regardless of interface improvements, especially when they're juggling production schedules. Have you seen any measurable changes in evaluation quality or just presentation improvements?