Live data from Hacker News

Have a personal web site

writing.markchristian.org

21–30 of 436 posts

Re: Have a personal web site

#23
I've had some interesting conversations sparked by my personal website (linked in profile). Friendships, even. I don't blog as much as I like to, I'm embarrassed by some of the content at times, but overall I'm pleased with it.

Re: Have a personal web site

#25

> You should... Except for all the reasons you shouldn't. The biggest reasons is that if putting up a website doesn't feel like a good use of time, it's probably better to just not have one. An alternative way to think about it is this... is it a good business decision to de-prioritize talking to people who don't have a website? I'd be real surprised if the answer was yes.

However, the same would apply to community work, etc.

A good personal website isn't only about presenting yourself, but also about respecting the viewer/reader, aligning interests, sharing and the promis to do so in a consistent way, and caring about things in general. If this goes with some brilliant content, this should be making a difference.

Re: Have a personal web site

#28
In Finland it is illegal to google for applicant's online presence, because of the possibility of judging the candidate because of misidentification. You have to have applicant's permission to that. And I am glad, because one of my name doubles isn't very representative person according to their online presence.

Re: Have a personal web site

#29

In Finland it is illegal to google for applicant's online presence, because of the possibility of judging the candidate because of misidentification. You have to have applicant's permission to that. And I am glad, because one of my name doubles isn't very representative person according to their online presence.

How is this law enforced? It seems like you could google them and discard their application for other reasons.

Re: Have a personal web site

#30
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because hiring people is risky and expensive, so (all other things being equal) companies prefer candidates they know more about.

I get that, but the context from the article is that of an interviewee looking up the interviewer and commenting that the interviewer was a "ghost" online. To me, that's somewhat bizarre. What bearing does your interviewer's hobbies have on your perception of whether the company and the role would be a good fit for you?

Where I live, it's expected from candidates to show they looked up the company and have prepared a question regarding a project the company is working on or something else about the company itself. So, you actually end up googling the thing.
Post reply on HN