221–230 of 367 posts
FYI there’s a rendering bug when I move back and forward in iOS 14.
If I visit FAQ then Support, then swipe back to return to the FAQ page I briefly see the Support page fade in, followed by the FAQ page.
I think this is an interesting idea, and would like to follow the progress. My only complaint is that the site is entirely unusable without JavaScript. Perhaps consider including some content with in addition to the notice of enabling JavaScript. I get most sites aren't designed with NoScript users in mjnd, but being able to see a little information before whitelisting the domain would be nice.
Dude the world uses JavaScript, stop making these comments on every thread
I didn't realize viewing text or images without client side JS was an unreasonable ask.
This is a good start, but I'm not a huge fan of this the way it is now. First, the font is tiny for my old eyes. Not all of us, especially hiring managers, are still in their 20s and can read these tiny fonts. I measured it with a ruler and the text is 1mm tall. Also, the font is gray on white, which is pretty but hard to read. In contrast, Linkedin is three times bigger and black on white, much easier to read. Secon…
> Steal their good stuff and leave their dark patterns behind. Their dark patterns make them money. That said, at this point, a LinkedIn competitor would look nothing like it...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All else being equal, isn't attractiveness also a marketable asset in most if not all industries?
How does being pretty make me a better, or even more marketable programmer or sysadmin? I'm not user-facing, and interaction is mostly done by textual messages.
CVs should be done in times new roman font or some basic font that doesn't scream. As boring as possible. Use a LaTeX, microsoft word, or some basic document layout tool and make a resume. If you need to make the resume look pretty, you're making up for something. No offense meant. This is how the real world works - try applying to jobs with a beautiful resume.
> This is how the real world works - try applying to jobs with a beautiful resume. Not in my experience. I got interviewed at top tech companies and joined a well-respected one after submitting a 'beautiful' resume which I really only spent a few hours designing. One of the tech interviewers thanked me for putting the time and effort into it, especially not trying to fill the entire page with as many bullet points as…
More discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24777640
I bought this book and they've done a lot of analysis around "prettifying" resumes.
Definitely beautiful and would love for something simple and clean to eat LinkedIn's lunch. I don't have much to add in addition to everyone else except this: I am really disturbed by the common meme of faces-inside-circles. Why do we need faces? It just distracts from the content. I love the idea of being able to link former colleagues together - that's neat - but I'm very anti-face and there are any number of ways…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Around ten direct replies to your post and I still don't feel like the reason why pictures on CVs is a bad idea has been explained explicitly. I'm in the UK, where race, age, gender, religion, disability are among protected characteristics. As such, that information, should it be included, is often either stripped from the CV automatically or the CV discarded entirely to obviate the risk of being accused of discrimin…
I mean no one's made an argument why it shouldn't be _optional_ if it already isn't either, as well as people are confusing the context of HR/Hiring Manager's shifting through resumes and traversing their own social graph on LinkedIn whether by search or connections list. This site could even, when it gets up to supporting some social graph, separate the two views, HR is using bookmarks/folder organization/some other…
I'll give you an argument against optional headshots: Adverse selection.
Given the advantages and disadvantage of having a headshot, most of the folks omitting them will have good reason to do so. Which means that those who don't have a headshot will be disadvantaged further.
IOW, not having a headshot signals one of three things: "I care about my privacy more than most people", "I couldn't be bothered to include a headshot", or "I am a member of a group that experiences prejudice based on superficial characteristics, such as weight or race, and wish to avoid this". There is a long tail of possible reasons and variations on these, for example the privacy one could actually be more along the lines of "I am hiding from my violent ex", but you get the drift.
None of these possible reasons are ones that give a reader warm fuzzy feelings. If the profile owner is very lucky, the reader will treat the absence of a headshot as largely irrelevant metadata, but that's the best case scenario: one of merely avoiding negative associations. There is no actual upside (the one exception I can come up with is an employer actually looking for candidates who are fanatical about their privacy for some reason, perhaps for security-related positions).
At least when you include a headshot you are only going to get hit with the actual relevant prejudice (which is a social filter that can be useful to you), rather than a stew of prejudices attached to all the imagined or assumed reasons for the image's absence, none of them consciously or coherently articulated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With real names, faces are just one google search away for most people (and we could debate further what would it mean if a face wasn't found). Functionally the website would be a wasteland of white sameness without portraits, no way around that I think. I'm not entirely convinced this service solves the linkedin pitfall of mingling jumphoppers racking up impressive paper stats and polluting the signal.
You can’t really stop people from finding your face online if it’s on social media, but you can present the information so that you’d first read the text and then see a photo. Move the photo on the profile to the bottom of it, and make it optional.
> You can’t really stop people from finding your face online if it’s on social media
Hey, some of us worked pretty hard for this to not be true, so at the very least the photo should be optional. I’m blessed with a common first and last name and outside of my HN username I am pretty un-Googlable. Someone very motivated could probably find an old photo of me or two but it’s not universally true that everyone’s photo is a simple search away.
Definitely beautiful and would love for something simple and clean to eat LinkedIn's lunch. I don't have much to add in addition to everyone else except this: I am really disturbed by the common meme of faces-inside-circles. Why do we need faces? It just distracts from the content. I love the idea of being able to link former colleagues together - that's neat - but I'm very anti-face and there are any number of ways…
Not a linkedin fan and I like the idea of focusing on what people use / want and not on what they don't. That said, I suspect you underestimate the importance of pictures in terms of memory building and many other networking steps.