Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Got Catfished by a Candidate

saastr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 662 posts

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#651

Post by Clubber »

dx034 wrote: post #650
Clubber wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya, whatever. I guess you failed that test, huh? You must be a bad programmer based on that. Better luck at your next interview. See how silly the premise is?

Isn't a quality of a software engineer to produce good code even when the specification isn't 100% correct? A lot of bad software exists because it was designed to only do what was written in the spec with no room for flexibility. Good engineers will have a dialogue with other stakeholders and clarify any issues and potential future uses. That means, if you read decimals for roman numerals you'd ask them to clarify a…

Sure, a great software developer can built a solution with a simple problem definition, "We spend a lot of money communicating with stakeholders."

You have to understand though, as a good developer, if someone asks me a question like that, it strongly implies that they don't know what the hell they are even doing. Hiring managers have to be keenly aware of what their questions are implying about their companies. I don't think many give it much though other than googling, "tough interview questions."

FWIW, I've sat on both sides of that table.

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#652

Post by jwives »

jmspring wrote: post #318
Kenji wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question: What is freemasonry about and why did you join it? I read up on them quite a bit but I just didn't find any good examples of actual goals and activities they are pursuing. Do Masons have a hacker mentality?

The path to becoming a mason is first by reaching out to your local lodge. The person who responds can help you with the process. Beyond masons, there are the elks, the moose, and in parts of the West Clampers. Each have their lodges, their rituals, and focus. I started the mason path, but life got busy. I’m a Moose member and a Clamper. In all cases, the focus is community. In most cases, and this is what I apprecia…

Thanks for all of the plaques :)

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#654

Post by nocman »

learc83 wrote: post #595
nocman wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In America it is incredibly easy to fire someone--stop being so paranoid." ^ uh, that is very often not the case. Well I guess it is if you are willing to live with any legal consequences that are the fallout of firing someone. I have a close relative that did a lot of hiring and a decent amount of firing (for legitimate reasons -- they were the type to give people a lot of chances, and genuinely wanted to help peop…

>would try to pursue legal action against the employer (even though they had no case whatsoever) People can pursue legal action for anything they want. They can pursue legal action for not hiring them in the first place. This isn't something unique to firing someone, it is a normal cost of business.

Neither of those things is relevant to the point I was making. The legal costs often incurred by firing someone (and they are very real) makes it more difficult to fire them. Also, the time spent by employers dealing with legal issues is very expensive also.

The fact that it isn't unique to the firing process doesn't change the fact that it often makes it more difficult to fire someone (again, even if the case goes nowhere the employer often has to deal with it anyway - costing both time and money).

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#655

Post by nocman »

lovich wrote: post #636
nocman wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Talking to people is not computer code." irrelevant. I never said it was. Also, saying "thank you for making it" isn't answering a question at all , so it isn't "answering a different question". "The entire camp of people in this thread" with my viewpoint simply disagree with you. You attribute dishonesty to things we would say, when we know that saying those things would be honest. So you can keep reiterating the s…

You didn't say that talking to people was like computer code, you are describing talking to people like it's computer code so it is relevant. >Also, saying "thank you for making it" isn't answering a question at all, so it isn't "answering a different question". Saying that you're not lieing because you are haven't said something that is false out of context, but is still misleading _on purpose_ is the most pedantic…

> You didn't say that talking to people was like computer code, you are describing talking to people like it's computer code so it is relevant.

That's your opinion, which I disagree with. So from my view it is still irrelevant. I'm willing to agree to disagree on that point.

> And just don't reply if you are going to be done with a discussion, telling people you might not bother replying to them is condescending and uncivil for this board

There was nothing uncivil, nor condescending about what I said. I just said I would continue to disagree even if I didn't continue the conversation.

I think we've pretty much beaten this disagreement to death, and it's time for me to move on.

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#656

Post by nocman »

dkersten wrote: post #642
nocman wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Talking to people is not computer code." irrelevant. I never said it was. Also, saying "thank you for making it" isn't answering a question at all , so it isn't "answering a different question". "The entire camp of people in this thread" with my viewpoint simply disagree with you. You attribute dishonesty to things we would say, when we know that saying those things would be honest. So you can keep reiterating the s…

Dishonesty is about misleading somebody, regardless of what you say. You can say 100% truthful things and still mislead people, which is still dishonest. A common method of dishonesty is by omitting important things. We are saying that we feel that your response is sidestepping the question asked of you, which is dishonest by omission, because this omission misleads. Communication is about more than the words you say…

While it is true that you can mislead by omission, every ommission of information is not an attempt to be dishonest.

Sometimes you just don't want people to know one way or the other. That is the scenario I described.

Many in this thread say that not answering is dishonesty, and ascribe my not answering the question to intending to lead my wife's grandmother to believe that I liked her food.

As I believe I pointed out earlier, my intention would not be to lead her to believe that I thought it was either good or bad -- I was not going to reveal the answer at all.

Leaving someone in the dark with no intention of pushing them to incorrect assumptions is not dishonesty.

Also, people can make incorrect assumptions about what is meant by what is said, even when the speaker has no intention of them making those assumptions.

It is the intention of the speaker that makes omission of information honest or dishonest.

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#657

Post by learc83 »

nocman wrote: post #654
learc83 wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>would try to pursue legal action against the employer (even though they had no case whatsoever) People can pursue legal action for anything they want. They can pursue legal action for not hiring them in the first place. This isn't something unique to firing someone, it is a normal cost of business.

Neither of those things is relevant to the point I was making. The legal costs often incurred by firing someone (and they are very real) makes it more difficult to fire them. Also, the time spent by employers dealing with legal issues is very expensive also. The fact that it isn't unique to the firing process doesn't change the fact that it often makes it more difficult to fire someone (again, even if the case goes n…

>Neither of those things is relevant to the point I was making. The legal costs often incurred by firing someone (and they are very real) makes it more difficult to fire them.

Here's why that's relevant. Because you're trying to reduce the amount of frivolous lawsuits from firing employees, you decide to be more hiring averse. You interview more people and turn many people down than you otherwise would have.

Each additional person you interview but turn down, exposes you to the possibility of a frivolous lawsuit. If you turn down 50 extra people, you've now opened yourself up to 50 extra frivolous lawsuits.

Hell each additional person who you accept a resume from could result in a frivolous lawsuit.

>The fact that it isn't unique to the firing process doesn't change the fact that it often makes it more difficult to fire someone (again, even if the case goes nowhere the employer often has to deal with it anyway - costing both time and money).

You keep using the term often. Wrongful termination lawsuits aren't common. Lawyers know they are very hard to win without a clear evidence of wrongdoing by the employer, and lawyers generally don't want to file frivolous lawsuits that they know will be almost immediately dismissed.

Lawyers who are willing to file lawsuits that they know they can't win definitely don't do so on contingency, and most people who've just been fired don't have thousands of dollars lying around to pay a lawyer to file a frivolous lawsuit.

Don't fire someone on FMLA, don't fire someone in retaliation for whistleblowing, don't fire someone because they're in a protected class etc... and the chances of being sued are very small.

Firing someone in the US is incredibly easy compared to most of the rest of the developed world. Stop being so risk averse. If you don't do anything stupid, The chance of a lawsuit is very small, the chance of a lawsuit that makes it past an initial hearing is smaller, and the chance of losing is smaller still. The amount of extra time you spend on interviews, the additional risk exposure from interviewing additional candidates, and the lost opportunity from additional false negatives is going to far outweigh any potential risk.

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#658

Post by learc83 »

extra88 wrote: post #645
magduf wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I won't call without your consent The way you wrote it, it seemed you were going to just call the employee's current manager. I would NEVER give you consent for that. I don't know what kind of screwed-up industry that would ever be the norm in. Doing this is grounds for a lawsuit because it will most likely result in termination of the employee from his current job. >if the reference calls go well you'll even likely…

> The way you wrote it, it seemed you were going to just call the employee's current manager. I wrote, "Checking references is one of the last things we do and insist that one be their a [sic] current manager". I thought that made it clear we ask the candidate for references and that one be their current manager. > The reference call almost guarantees the person will lose his current job. Not everyone is like you, I…

I don't think it's illegal, but it still going to increase the chances that someone sues--still unlikely.

However, "It’s legal, but it’s really, really crappy."

Notice the common theme that most people think that outing an employee is crappy, and forcing them to tell their perspective employer is also crappy.

Again, your sector may be different, but that's were everyone here is coming from--it's considered downright awful in our industry.

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#659

Post by learc83 »

nocman wrote: post #655
lovich wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't say that talking to people was like computer code, you are describing talking to people like it's computer code so it is relevant. >Also, saying "thank you for making it" isn't answering a question at all, so it isn't "answering a different question". Saying that you're not lieing because you are haven't said something that is false out of context, but is still misleading _on purpose_ is the most pedantic…

> You didn't say that talking to people was like computer code, you are describing talking to people like it's computer code so it is relevant. That's your opinion, which I disagree with. So from my view it is still irrelevant. I'm willing to agree to disagree on that point. > And just don't reply if you are going to be done with a discussion, telling people you might not bother replying to them is condescending and…

>That's your opinion, which I disagree with. So from my view it is still irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant just because you disagree with it. That's not what irrelevant means. It would be irrelevant if the truth or falsehood of the statement had no impact on the rest of the argument.

>I think we've pretty much beaten this disagreement to death, and it's time for me to move on.

Then just move on...stop trying to get the last word in. (I'm not the person you were replying).

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#660

Post by mercer »

emodendroket wrote: post #545
mercer wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Based on the story itself, I have no reason to believe that they'd have dismissed him if he had been honest and competent.

The story seems to suggest he was "comfortable" with him after he saw his work history, which suggested to me that an honest resume may have ended up in the trash can without any interview.

Ah, right. I can see that.
Post reply on HN