101–110 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't even go that far, I usually just add a field hidden with CSS that rejects the form if there's anything in it. Works perfectly.
My password manager loves to fill those in, for some reason.
All these discussion of how hiring is broken. Doesn't this imply an enormous market opportunity for the recruiting agencies or companies that can properly capitalize on either undervalued candidates or better knowledge?
Companies have the same problem the military does. They hire a certain stereotype because they've always hired a certain stereotype and the people in charge match that stereotype.
If there's any opportunity for disruption, it would be at tiny companies where there are people that 1) just need talent and 2) know that they process that made them successful is broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you're saying "resumes are fine, as long as you ignore most of the stuff that is considered important in contemporary resume culture." It's broken at a conceptual level, even if there are functional workarounds. The experiment from the article basically does what you describe, cuts out the stuff to ignore and goes straight to the project history. It would be beneficial for this to spread even if some p…
I'm happy with it staying status quo. Less competition makes it easier to hire the good ones. : )
All these discussion of how hiring is broken. Doesn't this imply an enormous market opportunity for the recruiting agencies or companies that can properly capitalize on either undervalued candidates or better knowledge?
I'm not advocating for that. I could argue either side of it without any cognitive dissonance. Just pointing out the additional possibility.
First of all, I definitely agree that resumes are woefully overused and overrated. They have structural problems and incentivize people to use "negative selection" criteria where people are eliminated based on not having a specific feature rather than selected for excelling on something¹. This article neatly demonstrates that resumes are not necessary and that not using them can unlock new sorts of candidates. Howeve…
However, I don't think there's a conclusion to be made about the actual method used here. I suspect that it worked because it was different, not because it carried a fundamentally strong signal. If everyone did this, project descriptions would be gamed even more than resumes—it would select for people who prepared for the selection process² more than anything else. I find myself almost irresistably drawn towards the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
* 20+ years of development experience 15 of those professionally * published author of various books * worked in systems that most startups would shit their pants with the requirements * some of the big name companies have tried to poach me based on the products I've worked * used professionally: C, C++, F#, C#, Ruby(Rails), Swift, Obj-C, Kotlin, Haskell, Scala I would never be called based on that criteria as I have…
So you're saying that the people who spend their free time developing projects that you most probably use in some form or another are doing “stupid shit”. I wouldn't hire you either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kind of "difficult-to-work-with" questions do you ask? I'd like to filter out these people but I'm not sure what sorts of questions to ask to suss that out.
Basically I goad them into complaining about past bad work experiences and then pay close attention for subtle clues that may indicate that they are systemically disrespectful or unwilling to compromise on things that don't seem worth fighting for. Were they bothered by people, situations or outcomes? Tell me about the most frustrating time when you needed a thing, or consensus on a thing, and you had to go through w…
It's quite possible the interviewee thinks the item is worth fighting, but you don't because of different principles/axioms. Are you looking for a justification in this case?
I screened and interviewed a lot of developers in my last position and it stood out to me that résumé quality seemed to be inversely correlated with the candidate's actual ability. I distinctly remember the absolute best developers that I hired also had the most atrociously bad résumés. The candidates with résumés that literally almost knocked me off my chair failed miserably at the most basic programming task.
Let me illustrate:
Growth Engineer One line Resume: "I was employee 7 at Snapchat when we had 6 engineers and 400,000 users. During my tenure as the only growth engineer, our userbase grew to 10 million users over the next 6 months."
SEO resume: "I joined XYZ when it was ranking at page 10 for major industry keywords. 9 months later. Google the following keyword BDHDUYD, which accounts for 40% of your market. If you find the company in the top 3 results, we should schedule an interview."
Software engineer: I do not know, but I am sure you can insert a short paragraph here.
I can just see this guy going out to Web devs, System devs, DBAs etc. and them all disagreeing because they're looking for different things (and value things differently).