We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#571

Post by throw2016 » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:36 PM UTC

This is a culture of fabricated hyper-competitiveness just for the sake of making a few feel special. It's completely integrated, cultural and also immature.

There is really not that much difference between people for the range of jobs available to create this mythology. The stars or 'the best' are Sergey and Larry not the people now working at Google etc. Employees could be talented, efficient but they are like the millions of other faceless people working at corporations and this is not meant to diminish them.

But the special ones usually made their own way and are know for that. And you don't have to be a billionaire. There are tons of software folks who have distinguished themselves. There is a lot of self aggrandizement and pandering to egos on among employees and hiring companies.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#572

Post by malvosenior » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:46 PM UTC

s73ver_ wrote: post #501

malvosenior wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s a policy as much as it is common sense. Unless the OP was producing output during that time (which he doesn’t suggest he would be doing), he _will_ be less attractive to hiring managers. Why would someone want to hire somebody who is letting their skills atrophy when they can hire somebody who’s been growing their skills actively? There are a lot of candidates out there and to ignore your competiti…

No, it's an asinine policy that screams "We only hire guys right out of college with no other life." It's the kind of thing that only comes up with people who have never been in such a situation, and can't imagine that such a situation would exist.

Again, it’s not a policy (you keep using that word). Are you a hiring manager? If so, would you really hire a person who hasn’t done anything work related for over a year over someone who has?

At the end of the day employment is a mutually beneficial deal for the employer and employee. It’s not some sort of social safety net. Performance counts.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#573

Post by hazza1 » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:47 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #275

So here's the thing... hiring at larger, growing companies often means weeding through a stack of a hundred resumes, for one or two or five roles. Most of those resumes need to go away. The interview process, for competent candidates, is going to cost you at bare minimum a half hour of one person's time for initial screening. A quality interview is going to take a couple of hours each for a few important people - man…

In my experience recruitment consultants will often try and "improve" the CVs they submit, even if it's just to fit into a template. I've seen many spelling mistake sneak in here.

You may well be rejecting candidates based on their recruiter.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#574

Post by jstarfish » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:47 PM UTC

kwhitefoot wrote: post #406

beat wrote: post #275

So here's the thing... hiring at larger, growing companies often means weeding through a stack of a hundred resumes, for one or two or five roles. Most of those resumes need to go away. The interview process, for competent candidates, is going to cost you at bare minimum a half hour of one person's time for initial screening. A quality interview is going to take a couple of hours each for a few important people - man…

Why is that people don't run a spellcheck? It's rare for me to see even official internal documents without several spelling mistakes even after they have been approved for publication. Just turning on the spelling checker in your favourite word processor, editor, or even web browser will go a long way toward catching most typos. The grammar checker in Word is also worth a try. Did you mean "P. G.'s maxim" when you t…

In my experience, spellcheck leaves a lot to be desired. Even on a finished document that I've manually verified as being perfect in terms of spelling and grammar, there's usually still a sea of red and green underlines offering incoherent suggestions in English as dictated by Google Translate.

If the authors of the documents you mention are anything like me, we're so used to ignoring false positives that the net result now permits minor errors to slip through.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#575

Post by Balgair » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:47 PM UTC

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #559

hyperpape wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even disagree with this. It's just also an admission that you don't hire the best. We can argue about whether there are 10x developers or not, but it doesn't matter for this discussion. If you assume that a developer is going to be with you for a year or more, then it starts to be worth a week or more of your (collective) time to improve the expected productivity of the people you hire by 10%. Not 2x, not 10x…

If you use a technique that cuts a lot of people, but cuts more bad people than good people, you'll still end up with plenty of good people. The difference in comparison isn't between the average and the good person who was cut, but between the good person who was cut and the good person who wasn't cut. What is the chance of the heuristic cutting someone 10% better than the best person not cut?

BTW, this is a 'solved' problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#576

Post by einarfd » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:48 PM UTC

jgust wrote: post #379

einarfd wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I consider it evidence of carelessness - I don't care if you can't spell, but I do care if you don't bother to run it past someone else who can for editing. Getting someone to look over your stuff and looking for spelling errors sounds like a simple and easy fix doesn’t it? But in my experience that doesn't work as well as one would think, prof reading is a lot harder than it looks. After all it's isn't enough to c…

Did you misspell prof(sic) to make a point, or was that a happy accident?

I would never misspell on purpose. That was a "something" accident. But I do see it now, after you pointed it out.

Oh well, 20 years ago I would have been horrified being caught out posting something with spelling errors in public. Actually, I would probably not have posted in public at all. But at some point you just have to stop caring about trivialities like that.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#577

Post by Balgair » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:49 PM UTC

A lot of people in this thread need to read about the Secretary Problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem

This method would help solve a lot of the issues people have with hiring and applying to jobs. The argument is then how to set N correctly.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#578

Post by shanusmagnus » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:50 PM UTC

dhimes wrote: post #569

kafkaesq wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused about employers' desire to cast a wide net, only to filter through applicants thoughtlessly. What's to be confused about? They don't give a fuck - about you, or your time. Why? Because they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that there's no business incentive for them to do so. Either way... if they leave you dangling, or make you answer just a few silly questions too many, and/or sign up for (nearly) unlimit…

there's no business incentive for them to do so. But there is one: to save the precious time of valuable people. I think it's an interesting suggestion.

Even more important than that is to get people who really are aligned with what the company actually is, instead of just the standard bullshit that everybody says.

I, too, really like the idea, but I wonder if, in practice, it wouldn't work because companies don't introspect deeply enough to understand what makes them distinct? For instance, if what's remarkable about your company is that you have a great culture where people goof off a lot and have a lot of fun, and still manage to get a passable amount of work done, would anyone dare to self-identify that way?

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#579

Post by cableshaft » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:51 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #531

cableshaft wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my in-person interview at Google, they told me I could use whatever I felt most comfortable with, which at that point in time was Objective-C. In retrospect it was a terrible idea. That language is stupid verbose, and I ran out of whiteboard for every single question I had there. They were mainly interested in me for iOS development though. They did not give me an offer, although I don't think it was for that reas…

It's definitely true that some languages are better than others, because the types of problem and time limitations are the same regardless of the language chosen. Lower level languages tend to be worse because they take longer and there's more ways to trip yourself up. Personally, I think that C# is the ideal language for interviewing in, as the .NET standard library is very powerful. SortedDictionary alone can easil…

I would probably use Python on a whiteboard nowadays, even though at my day job I use C# and only use Python periodically in my freetime at the moment. Python's a lot more concise of a language in general. Although C# is smooth like butter when paired with Visual Studio, and I could use it if requested.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#580

Post by tnolet » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:55 PM UTC

lynnetye wrote: post #509

beat wrote: post #275

So here's the thing... hiring at larger, growing companies often means weeding through a stack of a hundred resumes, for one or two or five roles. Most of those resumes need to go away. The interview process, for competent candidates, is going to cost you at bare minimum a half hour of one person's time for initial screening. A quality interview is going to take a couple of hours each for a few important people - man…

I'm a web developer who has been thinking about engineering hiring and culture a LOT over the last 6 months. I'm confused about employers' desire to cast a wide net, only to filter through applicants thoughtlessly. Instead, why don't engineering teams save time and energy by articulating their specific engineering values, and sharing that information up front? Be honest. Say divisive things. This will allow job-seeke…

This sounds nice, but is very far away from actual reality. Sadly, almost 25%-30% of applicants, in my experience, don't even read the full job description or ignore key parts that are listed in bold text, some examples based on actual real life:

- "You need to be based in , we don't do remote" -- applies from US/Pakistan/Russia, wants remote work. - "Make clear what attracts you in our business/industry" -- ignores any mention of industry, business or such. - "Don't repeat your CV in the cover letter" -- guess what? Cover letter is repetition of his/her CV...

I wish I was lying, but this is daily routine when hiring.