501–510 of 662 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a guy with my name, roughly the same age as me, from the same hometown who's a recently paroled pedophile. All the top results when you search my name are about him. So yeah, I'm not enthusiastic about Googling every candidate.
That's all the more reason why you should have a web presence!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is generally understood that candidates must consent to have their references checked. In what part of the application process did the candidate consent to you letting anyone you choose know they are looking for a job?
It is generally understood that candidates must consent to have their references checked. That's rubbish. It's generally understood that all parties are expected to perform due diligence. What do you think people do with the connection graph linkedin displays? I've interviewed people who were clear that they didn't want their current employer to know that they were looking - that's fine, and easy to respect. But the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know that your backdoor reference doesn't personally dislike the candidate for something unrelated to their mutual work experience? Maybe hiring by hearsay works for some people, but I don't trust references, good or bad.
That’s actually an argument for checking more than one reference from each organization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Next time someone says technical hiring is not hiring quite so many women or minorities because it's purely meritocratic, I'm going to point them at this post.
Do women not attend social clubs? Because that’s what IRC channels and the Freemasons both are: social clubs. Or, do women with hiring authority just not preferentially hire contacts from social clubs? (A good test case: are there as many “same sorority” coworkers as “same fraternity” coworkers, in proportion to the number of each gender with hiring authority in that company?) Or, do women just end up in fewer positi…
The thing I don't get is, and probably I'll be downvoted to hell because of that, even though this guy lied about his past, his knowledge is solid. Nobody can guess what the interviewers will ask you and from what I've read from the text he aced those. If this is the tech business rolls what I see that it wants developers with a history, with connections, with "clout" so to speak; doesn't matter if you can help their…
I applaud that you give this comment. Your comment seems indeed controversial, but you gave it in a thoughtful manner and you dared to give it. This is what I like about HN: thoughtful comments that may be controversial but are relevant even at the risk of one's own reputation. From my own limited interview experience: companies reject you for the silliest things, in my opinion and I have decided that I need to decei…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[citation needed] Usually that's not the case. Plenty of people lie, often unnecessarily, about tiny things like making excuses for being late but would not lie to cover up anything that has serious ethical implications.
The first person people lie to is themselves. For a person that doesn't have a personal commitment to integrity, when they are placed in a position where they are incentivized to lie, they will first convince themselves that this lie is either harmless (we are going to lose the account anyway, what is the point of getting everyone mad at me) or the lie is for a good cause. Once that is done, usually unconsciously, th…
Psychology seems to be way more complex than "once a liar always a liar". Some citation of psychological research would help.
> He impressed each interviewer with his knowledge and passion for the brand, his sales acumen, outbound hunter mentality, and overall presence. > Our Catfish never faltered, kept a smile on his face the entire time, and did his homework. We even talked about sales operations, discussed the pros and cons of MEDDIC, and talked about Salesforce workflows. I mean, this guy was pretty good. Sounds like they were an excel…
They were a great candidate right up until the "lied on their resume and in job interviews, also created a fake email address and phone number to pretend to be someone else" part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He adapted to an unfavourable situation, studied hard, did his research well and passed multiple tests - I'd gladly work with someone like that
And when the solution to the next unfavorable situation he faces involves railroading you? Liars lie and cheaters cheat. You might be fine if you're never their target, but you never know when you will be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude, no. Someone who would lie this much to get what he wants will lie when you're working with him. If he makes a big mistake he will lie about it to avoid getting fired just as surely as he lied to get the job. Citing Neil Gaiman -- or some other celebrity -- doesn't do anything to make this less true.
To get what he wants? Would that be a job? So are you saying that in all your interviews you've had in the past you've been absolutely, positively 100% truthful about your experience and knowledge? That you've never inflated your abilities whatsoever?
Besides, that's not even the issue. This guy just flat out lied. Not exaggerated, he told lies and built upon them. There's no excuse for that.
That's odd. The author defends his "backdoor reference checks" by saying he would have never caught the catfish otherwise. Then later on the same person he contacted for his "backdoor reference check" was given to him as a reference, which would have happened regardless.
Yes, but they might have naively used the given number rather than the number they personally had, out of convenience, which would have caused the catfish to succeed.