I don't hire unlucky people • Hacker News Board

Re: I don't hire unlucky people

#141

Post by timr » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 11:42 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #124

brazzy wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is almost completely useless. It claims you shouldn't throw out resumes based on simple heuristics and stuff that only correlates with programming ability because there are so few people applying who are any good, but has exactly one sentence to say about how to then actually find those few people: "I grill them, hard, on actual programming and actual software development." Right. Sure. Every single one o…

The article criticises the unquestioning use of bad heuristics. One needs to think very carefully about how accurate the heuristics employed are at describing the unseen (but directly desired) attribute(s) as well as what un-desirable attributes it may be silently signalling. As someone who worked at an investment bank, I'd go ballistic when managers would turn away candidates because their resumes weren't properly a…

You know what's kind of funny, though? I bet that a not-so-small percentage of people who are nodding their heads up-and-down wildly in response to this essay think nothing of filtering their applicant pool based on github profile.

After all, it's a "coding" metric, right?

Re: I don't hire unlucky people

#142

Post by tomkin » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 11:44 PM UTC

raganwald wrote: post #92

roryokane wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dislike the story form too, and I can explain why. The style gives the impression that Reginald is claiming "this really happened, and those people used this technique, and they lived happily ever after – so if it worked for them, it will work for you; give this technique a try". But this tale never happened, so that implied argument is a lie. This story forces me to put on my "disbelieve, disbelieve, disbelieve" m…

The style gives the impression that Raganwald is claiming "this really happened, and those people used this technique, and they lived happily ever after – so if it worked for them, it will work for you; give this technique a try Respectfully, no it doesn’t. Try showing the story to one hundred randomly selected people and ask whether they think this really happened. I think you will find that there are a few people w…

I don't like that we can't question this story because it's fictional. It has legs because of the way it is written, but no one can jab or poke at it without the obvious "well, it's just a story, man" line. I hate outs like that. It's been mentioned that there is an overall religious feel to these articles. I think it's because religion always has an out when it needs to explain something using evidence. Then there is the article title, "I don't hire unlucky people" with "raganwald's posterous" as the header. Not sure how someone could glance at this and determine it was fictional - but I think you know that.

> The fact that such people are in a minority doesn’t invalidate their (or your) feelings

Well, we don't know if they are the minority or not. No one has really taken a poll. I'll say I've found the same lineage in your articles. They tend to play on the emotionally-binding do the right thing narrative - which is fine, but the articles always conclude with this overall "so that's why you have to do it this way" feeling. Morals aside, there's really no validation to these ideas. It's one thing to tell a story and have a happy ending, but the subject matter is often timely and succinct to current events - making it (in perspective of the moment) newsworthy. I understand it is easy to talk around that, so I guess one would have to ask "Why do you write in this way?". If your articles are politically-driven, then why write fiction? If story-telling is your angle, why the call to arms narrative?

This isn't to say your writing isn't good - to the contrary. But if we're talking about whether your articles could be confusing to some – I'd say I agree.

Re: I don't hire unlucky people

#143

Post by wumpushunter » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 11:44 PM UTC

roguecoder wrote: post #100

cousin_it wrote: post #9

So the most efficient interviewing process for the employer is also the nicest to candidates? What a curious coincidence. Are you sure there was no wishful thinking involved in writing this post?

Right now it's a candidate's market (unless you actually suck). The best chance companies that would like to hire me now had was seven years ago when my resume was thin and unconventional but my code was solid. Now that my background conventional (except for the lack of a related degree) they are falling all over themselves, and I am quite content in a brilliant job making more than most of them are willing to pay. I…

Would you please email me? I have a few questions for you re: your resume.

My email is in my profile.

Re: I don't hire unlucky people

#144

Post by raganwald » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 11:53 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #124

brazzy wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is almost completely useless. It claims you shouldn't throw out resumes based on simple heuristics and stuff that only correlates with programming ability because there are so few people applying who are any good, but has exactly one sentence to say about how to then actually find those few people: "I grill them, hard, on actual programming and actual software development." Right. Sure. Every single one o…

The article criticises the unquestioning use of bad heuristics. One needs to think very carefully about how accurate the heuristics employed are at describing the unseen (but directly desired) attribute(s) as well as what un-desirable attributes it may be silently signalling. As someone who worked at an investment bank, I'd go ballistic when managers would turn away candidates because their resumes weren't properly a…

I agree with everything you are all saying.

What I was trying to claim is that there’s a relationship between heuristics and the ham/spam ratio of the documents being classified. When there is very little ham and a lot of spam, my claim is that false negatives are extremely expensive. When the benefit of hiring is very high and the cost of interviewing is low, my claim is that false positives are relatively cheap.

Given these two, my claim is that given current market realities, when hiring programmers for a mission-critical role the best strategy is to go light on spam-filtering heuristics and heavy on direct inspection of the ham content.

But obviously, some heuristics have their place. To a certain extent, everything except “Start work on Monday, there will be three month’s probation” is a heuristic.

And “This article is almost complete useless” is also true, given that it says in many paragraphs using a contrived format what I just said in two paragraphs, it obviously contains a lot of redundancy and extraneous noise!

Re: I don't hire unlucky people

#145

Post by jleader » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 11:54 PM UTC

Steko wrote: post #116

cosecant wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Job descriptions just shouldn't have "rock star" or "ninja" unless they are hired on their ability to perform music in front of an audience or on their katana wielding skills.

Rock Star: that guy who shows up late and worked on a hit project 15 years ago that he's always bringing up. Ninja: that guy who's never at his desk and never says anything in meetings.

You forgot to mention "brings his katana to meetings" (the sword, not the Suzuki motorcycle).

It's kind of "friend-of-a-friend", but I had a boss who told me about working with a developer who actually did that, I think at a game company in the late 80s.

Re: I don't hire unlucky people

#146

Post by raganwald » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 11:55 PM UTC

tomkin wrote: post #142

raganwald wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The style gives the impression that Raganwald is claiming "this really happened, and those people used this technique, and they lived happily ever after – so if it worked for them, it will work for you; give this technique a try Respectfully, no it doesn’t. Try showing the story to one hundred randomly selected people and ask whether they think this really happened. I think you will find that there are a few people w…

I don't like that we can't question this story because it's fictional . It has legs because of the way it is written, but no one can jab or poke at it without the obvious " well, it's just a story, man " line. I hate outs like that. It's been mentioned that there is an overall religious feel to these articles. I think it's because religion always has an out when it needs to explain something using evidence. Then ther…

If you want evidence, I think you should look elsewhere besides Hacker News. It’s a nice place full of very smart people, but posts containing empirical evidence gathered under controlled conditions are few and far between.

Re: I don't hire unlucky people

#147

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 11:57 PM UTC

overcyn wrote: post #115

plinkplonk wrote: post #26

I agree with every point Reginald makes but (and I am being nitpicky here) the form of the story - the seeming overtailored parable nature of it, of the kind you'd find in the Reader's Digest or a religious tract - rubs me ever so slightly the wrong way. I could have done without all the fake (or seemingly fake anyway) dialogue between the Wooster/Oscar etc and would have preferred a straightforward "This is what I(R…

Look at me outwitting these fictionalized characters I've created vs. Here are some interesting ideas I have.

[deleted]

Re: I don't hire unlucky people

#148

Post by raganwald » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 11:58 PM UTC

erikb wrote: post #131

raganwald wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://raganwald.posterous.com/why-i-downvote-tldr-comments-...

Thanks for telling me, so I could give this guy an upvote to counter :)

Notice that I actually agree that my words were too long! I rarely actually downvote people, and almost never when they're criticizing me.

Re: I don't hire unlucky people

#149

Post by tomkin » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 11:59 PM UTC

raganwald wrote: post #146

tomkin wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like that we can't question this story because it's fictional . It has legs because of the way it is written, but no one can jab or poke at it without the obvious " well, it's just a story, man " line. I hate outs like that. It's been mentioned that there is an overall religious feel to these articles. I think it's because religion always has an out when it needs to explain something using evidence. Then ther…

If you want evidence, I think you should look elsewhere besides Hacker News. It’s a nice place full of very smart people, but posts containing empirical evidence gathered under controlled conditions are few and far between.

I've read plenty of articles about political, corporate, structural viewpoints – all with details of recent experience, personal findings and data on HN. I'd say fictional short-stories would be the odd man out at HN.

Re: I don't hire unlucky people

#150

Post by rohi81 » Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 12:02 AM UTC

raganwald wrote: post #57

rizzom5000 wrote: post #53

While I enjoyed the article and its message, I found the spelling error on the resume example underwhelming. A professional's resume is the veneer they present to strangers. It's like the login page for your app. Do you want a spelling error there when it is so easy to avoid? It screams sloppy and lazy in the same sentence. Maybe the general quality of professional devs is so bad that sloppiness and laziness are bett…

What is the difference between a spelling mistake and failing to wear a tie to an interview? I suggest nothing except for cultural standards. Once upon a time, they were both punishable by immediate removal from the process. Today one is tolerated but the other not tolerated. they both signal the same thing: “I meticulously went over my presentation to ensure that it meets your expectations.” Let’s be clear: I think…

As a first time entrepreneur hiring out interns I have had a very a telling experience. I did all the classic mistakes of basing the candidacy on certain parameters or keywords on the resume - though I believe its their work not what they claim matters. I did nt meet with much success. One of the most insightful things I learned in this process was to ask the candidate to contribute a sample piece e.g. a small piece of his work for a fictional project. This filters out many of the non-committed types. Some look bad on paper and even fail the screening questions bu their work again is revelation. We also upped the candidates commitment check by asking them to dial in and pick a screening date, fix up a deliverable (sample only) and meet a deadline. We filtered out all non-serious, non-committal candidates and those that came after this elimination by virtue have turned out to be very committed. They are far more passionate. My lessons were simple 1. Measure and value their commitment 2. Value their work and through that their passion and sincerity 3. Challenge them with adversity and discouragement - watch closely on their reactions.

After this you end up with great people. Btw - we were hiring creative interns for copy-writing job (nothing fashionable like programming). So there you go my experience on this and your article strikes a high resonance with me for this reason.