Sorry to be pedantic, but as long as we're doing grammar feedback: it's called contracting or a contraction, not truncate.

How does this make no sense? I think the idea is to save both parties from having to express premature rejection to the other.

In the current model we wanted to keep things simple and leave as much as possible to them to decide or know. With a check box, we may ask them to select exactly what they want with this particular person.

Do you think, for every selection, asking whether you want to hire or you want to work for a particular person is really necessary, or is it enough to leave this to them, of course with a certain risk of misunderstanding in some cases. I would be pleased to hear your opinion.

We appreciate your feedback.

Start having job interviews

I would suggest editing this to "start getting job interviews." The verb is more active and immediate, making the user feel they are receiving a benefit from your service instead of an incidental.

It may sound like a quibble, but to me the landing page copy is just as important, if not more important, than the design elements.

The matching is currently based on LinkedIn connections of yours. So, we hope Jobrupt to be used within some circles inside LinkedIn. If you have a match, we notify you through your email registered in your LinkedIn account. We don't particularly contact your selections, or connections.

That's the part I'm struggling to understand. How will I ever get a match?

Say I select Director A as someone I would be interested in being interviewed by. How would Director A ever find out? Surely Director A would need an "employer" account where they can select Potential Employee A as someone they would willingly interview?

Just think you are running a Scala or Ruby development team, and regularly meet a lot of developers in conferences. You are a small group, and you are connected to each other. However you don't want to offer jobs explicitly. In such cases Jobrupt may help. It's our hope, and it is still an experiment.

Let's use your example as context.

I am running a Scala or Ruby development team and regularly meet a lot of developers in conferences. I meet an amazing Scala developer at a conference but he seems happy in his current job and I don't want to plead with him to join our company.

Lets assume this amazing Scala developer subsequently signs up to your site and selects me as someone he would like to be interviewed by.

I will never, ever find out that he's interested.

Why? Using your current model, I, the hiring manager, would also have to select him as someone I want to be interviewed by.

The chances of this happening aren't slim, they are literally zero.

Hence my question on why you don't have a SEPARATE sign in for employers so that they can list people they would willingly interview.

You have potentially created an amazing tool but it's only 50% complete.

I think this execution is a fun one, but is it really all that needed?

Some example situations; you left your previous position and you want to come back, but are reserved to make the first move back to your previous boss. You are a well known programmer, and you are well connected to people, but you are reserved to make the first move. You want to hire your service provider, you want to hire your client, you want to hire a competitor etc. I accept that in majority of the cases employers and employers don't hesitate to make the first move, but I just try to contemplate some cases where Jobrupt may work. Finally this is just an experimental idea, and if it works for some people in some communities it will be worth the effort.

Again: really neat idea, and I think the execution is great too, but is it really needed?

Could you share why not? Is this just "feels better that way"?

English is my second language and maybe I should read more.