161–170 of 633 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's just that you might as well just ignore it and not cause any additional noise.
Not GP but I can’t shake that it feels rude, even if expected. But more practically: if I decline after the first, I don’t get the other 4 emails they have queued up for me
Ignore recruiter if they: * are a part of a large firm * use multiple fonts, sizes, or any color in their emails * send an email _and_ an InMail * text or call you * jokingly or seriously refer to themselves as a stalker * automatically substitute in your skills or past company name * ask for your resume when they can obviously download the LinkedIn pdf * don’t disclose comp * don’t disclose the company name * use tr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's just that you might as well just ignore it and not cause any additional noise.
Not GP but I can’t shake that it feels rude, even if expected. But more practically: if I decline after the first, I don’t get the other 4 emails they have queued up for me
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you could get the same effect but in like 6-8 sentences, 1-2 paragraphs. If I saw this text in a response, personally (and I'm not a recruiter), I'd move on since the person seems hard to handle. But yeah my approach is different in the first place. I only respond to recruiters who seem to put good thought and background research into their conversation starter.
I'd love to see your version of the same thing. The exact response isn't really as important as writing something that is authentic and in "your voice" You're probably right that a different response would work well for you. Though if a recruiter wasn't willing to read through that for the ~$30k payday I'd represent if they are successful, maybe that's one that I don't want to work with either. But we all gravitate t…
"Thanks for reaching out, could you send along the company name, a job description and total compensation details for the role?"
Get to the core of what you're asking. The rest of the response is needlessly long-winded. You don't want them to waste your time, and that is a fair ask in our industry, but you also don't need to waste theirs.
There are few people in my life that wasted as much of my time as recruiters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have one line from 2017 about working on blockchain proposals. I never wrote any blockchain code. But it is half of my LinkedIn inbox.
I think it happens to me because I mention that I'm dabbling in rust in my profile, and I guess that's a keyword they scrape for.
I went into this thinking I was going to disagree because honestly I hate recruiters and the time-wasting involved but I actually agree. Here's why: by having a template that he just copy-pastes. This is extremely low effort and will filter out a lot of recruiters. I also agree with working with company recruiters over third-party recruiters. The first thing many recruiters will want to do is "hop on a call". Resist…
Why is this? Why do they insist on wasting a candidate's time when answering some simple questions via email is much more efficient?
I've talked to HR people about this, and the answers I've received are not satisfying. A common response is that they want to get to know you, hear how you speak, determine if you might be a good fit. BUT, shouldn't they figure out if the candidate is even interested by verifying basic needs/requirements?
The responses come down to basically they don't value our time as much as we do.
In addition I made small control question, for example: "Whats the first letter on my LinkedIn description?".
That way I know I don't talk with a bot and they really read my profile.
I also recommend a response to every recruiter, but you don't need to explain your privilege, you don't need to suck up to them, and you don't need to justify your actions. "Hey ____. Before we move forward, can you provide me with the company name, a job description, and the expected compensation. Regards"
> "Hey ____. Before we move forward, can you provide me with the company name, a job description, and the expected compensation. Regards" I've found that this makes 80-90% of recruiters go completely silent. For some reason, asking for this basic information scares off the vast majority of recruiters. I'm genuinely unsure what I - or they - get out of dragging this out into a screenful of blah blah blah.
On the other hand, because of commission, it is in the recruiter's interest to get you as much money as possible so you might get a better offer via them than you would if you went direct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deciding to disregard any recruiter opportunity is just shutting out quite a few things that you probably won't hear about otherwise and that policy is doing nothing to advance your position (career, earnings, etc.) Are readers supposed to read this as a suggestion that missing out is synonymous with losing out ? I kind of take exception to these phrases because it strips a lot of agency out of otherwise exceptional…
I read it as a fairly mathematical statement of fact. There is a tree of opportunities, and one can choose to prune some of them at the root. By definition, any direct/anticipated; and any unanticipated, indirect opportunities; are gone. Which is a 100% valid personal choice, I interpreted the minor quibble being whether this is a net positive creditor to their overall success. On one hand, pruning opportunities is i…
It was meant as a statement of fact. To oversimplify, if you limit the information you are willing to receive, you won't have all the information you could have.
My main issue with the original post was that OP was crediting a policy of reduced information with doubling their salary. That just isn't the case.