We created a fake language to root out resume liars • Hacker News Board

Re: We created a fake language to root out resume liars

#251

Post by mtberatwork » Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 12:34 PM UTC

that_guy_iain wrote: post #118

austincheney wrote: post #107

Why even bother with a fake language when so often the industry has devolved into some sick level of honest negligence? For example: rarely do candidates need to know JavaScript anymore or even some unnecessary framework. Now people trade in experience of some tool that says nothing of anything: React Flux Capacitor (or some other bullshit like they want to go back in time to make lots of money without any real skill…

Honestly, the thing I hate the most about IT is how bad it is while no one admits to it. These are problems I've encountered at several companies: * No budget for tooling. Be that software outside the ide or be it for hardware. * Cargo cult is so much bigger than anyone will ever admit. * The lack of caring about other departments. We're a team and we need to work as a team so the company can make money to pay our sa…

> The lack of caring about other departments.

There's an entire cottage industry of expensive consultants that are happy to give your management team fancy but useless PowerPoint decks on how to "break down silos".

Re: We created a fake language to root out resume liars

#252

Post by throwanem » Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 12:35 PM UTC

brigandish wrote: post #77

> That way, when candidates were pitched to us with "X years of MOVA experience", we knew that somebody was full of it. I'd put my money on the recruiter. I once had an excruciatingly awkward interview at a company on an industrial estate in the middle of nowhereland with no train station nearby that took me bloody ages to get to… which was actually going well until they asked me about my long experience with Exchang…

That's pretty wild! I've worked with a fair number of recruiters at this point, from both sides of the table, and the next one I see pull something like that will be the first.

Re: We created a fake language to root out resume liars

#253

Post by sokoloff » Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 12:36 PM UTC

texasbigdata wrote: post #248

GuB-42 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it usually written on the resume? I would expect someone to be actually good at chess to put down their Elo rating. For someone just putting it as a hobby, I wouldn't expect much, especially when it comes to the "boring" stuff like memorizing openings. In the same way that there is usually a difference between what high level athletes and hobbyist write. The former usually mention something concrete (champion…

Putting an ELO is like putting your SAT when you’re 25 and over: sort of aggressive and you better have a really high number!

I scored fairly well on the SAT. I can’t think of anything short of a court order that would cause me to put it on my resume.

Re: We created a fake language to root out resume liars

#254

Post by permo-w » Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 12:37 PM UTC

dnh44 wrote: post #95

ivalm wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, lots of people colloquially claim to be good at chess but can’t even stumble though a proper opening. The difference between say a class-a player and a rando is massive and easy to tell.

Memorising openings is also a crutch for players who aren’t that good so I’m not sure if I would use that as a benchmark for good players.

I wouldn’t agree with that. Memorising openings is something you do so that you don’t have to repeatedly calculate every tactic in a position, and to help you reach a favourable mid game

Besides, once you get into the middlegame, you still need the tactical and positional skills that I suspect you consider opening knowledge a crutch for

In chess (and life) it’s far easier to pattern match a solution for a position rather than coming up with a brand new solution every time

In my opinion, this makes memory and experience far more important than intellect in chess, especially in the faster time formats

Re: We created a fake language to root out resume liars

#255

Post by EveYoung » Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 12:37 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #87

neolog wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they offer that?

It demonstrates that the client actually read the contract.

Does it? If someone from legal reads the contract, why would they bother dealing with this gimmicky clause? The budget has already been approved and sending someone a plant might cost another 30min of their time they rather spent on doing their job.

Re: We created a fake language to root out resume liars

#256

Post by goatinaboat » Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 12:40 PM UTC

ezconnect wrote: post #158

arethuza wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a branch office of one of the big UK recruitment companies - I can't remember their name (it was ~10 years ago). I suspect the management knew that berating people in a semi public area added that extra level of humiliation - their managers were all pretty scary and I didn't even work for them!

I once coded for a recruitment agency and they get paid a recruitment fee equal to a 1 month salary of their recruit.

they get paid a recruitment fee equal to a 1 month salary of their recruit

It can go a lot higher than that, 3-4 months salary for more senior hires. The good news is this means the recruiter is incentivised to help you negotiate higher pay

Re: We created a fake language to root out resume liars

#257

Post by nmstoker » Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 12:42 PM UTC

Years ago I had in wasted interview because a well known financial institution had an internal system named after a particular type of financial product which it later became clear it had zero relation to.

Despite flagging concerns regarding an apparent mismatch, the recruiter said my experience was perfect.

I went along and within minutes of getting past the intros and onto the role specifics, it was clear it was a waste of time.

Multiple red flags there for me: much as I back myself and have a strong CV, it was concerning my CV got past their basic screening for what they should have known was an inappropriate role. I blacklisted the recruiter and found another job through word of mouth soon after (a much better method where possible).

Re: We created a fake language to root out resume liars

#258

Post by corobo » Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 12:42 PM UTC

e-clinton wrote: post #226

practicalpants wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, for my first programming job out of college a recruiter arranged an onsite interview for a Java role, when I was under every impression it was for Ruby/Rails. I don't know Java. The first interviewer laughed and walked out. I explained things to the recruiter, he cursed, said he would "visit the Ruby team upstairs". He actually managed to setup an impromptu on-site interview with the Ruby team on that same day.…

That’s either the best or worst recruiter ever

A recruiter actually managing to get someone a job is firmly in the best category

Re: We created a fake language to root out resume liars

#259

Post by arethuza » Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 12:44 PM UTC

dunefox wrote: post #219

arethuza wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a large company I once worked for I suggested a ticket prioritisation scheme based on assigning a numerical value to each staff member (e.g. CIO = 1000, lower values for lesser deities) and calculating a value for each ticket based on the sum of the values for each person standing behind the person actually fixing the problem. This was based on observing 4 people (CIO and managers from intermediate levels) standin…

That's actually a genius idea. I wonder how much money is wasted on such things.

I wasn't entirely serious and short of surgically grafting location detectors to all managers (maybe not a bad idea in itself) not sure how their location could be tracked with enough precision to make it worthwhile. ;-)

Re: We created a fake language to root out resume liars

#260

Post by bidirectional » Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 12:52 PM UTC

DocTomoe wrote: post #92

alexf95 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GM would easily figure out at what chess level he is though. No one expecting him to beat the GM of course.

The point is that that still is pretty meaningless. You can enjoy a game of chess even if you are not very good at it, much like you can enjoy a game of golf for the aspect of walking around in a well-kept park and having a chat, and see some improvement in your handicap over time. I would not expect someone who puts chess on a resume to play competitively, which is a whole different beast.

But it's impossible to play chess or golf at even the most leisurely level without improving at least a little, as you say with handicap. I'm sure an expert can tell the difference between an earnest hobbyist and someone who learnt the rules as a child but hasn't played since.