It is rather arrogant I think.
I don't think it's arrogant - it's direct. I would think a recruiter would want to know about these kinds of preferences, if only to save them the time spent contacting someone who wouldn't be a fit for an opening.
Dear Recruiters
21–30 of 66 posts
Re: Dear Recruiters
#22Why talk down to people like so, almost treating the recruiters like they were little children who need to be lectured about how to behave. Recruiters are human beings too, who are just trying to do their job.
As a recruiter I find the post refreshing. It has a bit of a negative streak in it, but I understand where that's coming from.
Re: Dear Recruiters
#23Why talk down to people like so, almost treating the recruiters like they were little children who need to be lectured about how to behave. Recruiters are human beings too, who are just trying to do their job.
The word is pompous. Nobody deserves to have a bunch of 'you' assumptions thrown their way without ever speaking to them.
That said, I've had a few recruiters irritate me before.
Re: Dear Recruiters
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does come off as a little condescending, but hopefully we can take that to mean that he is really really in love with his current job!
If you don't want to get approached by recruiters then don't be on LinkedIn in the first place. This is just my opinion though.
There's more to linkedin than recruiting.
Re: Dear Recruiters
#25 Minimum offer
...
Pony: 1+
Re: Dear Recruiters
#26Why talk down to people like so, almost treating the recruiters like they were little children who need to be lectured about how to behave. Recruiters are human beings too, who are just trying to do their job.
Who's being disrespected when our time is wasted because a recruiter can't read a simple profile and has zero understanding of the technologies they are recruiting for? That's where the treatment comes from. Recruiters as a whole seem to be transient bunch that never intended to become a recruiter or care about what we do in the first place. Some of us have devoted our entire lives to this field. So when you come at us with "I Need something insanely stupid because I couldn't be bothered to READ", well you're wasting our time. Who likes to have their time wasted?
Re: Dear Recruiters
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it arrogant to state your minimum requirements up front? To me it shows respect for everyone's time and attention.
The wording is arrogant not the minimum requirement.
I don't see anywhere that he is displaying an exaggerated sense of his abilities. He says look at my history and judge my capability from that.
What exactly strikes you as arrogant? Is it the fact that he says to recruiters "go read this before we talk further"? The fact that he calls out bad behavior?
Re: Dear Recruiters
#28Why talk down to people like so, almost treating the recruiters like they were little children who need to be lectured about how to behave. Recruiters are human beings too, who are just trying to do their job.
This is no worse than the 10 word message I get offering me an opportunity that's "perfect" for me.
If a large chunk of the recruiters weren't so lazy, there'd be no need for this.
Re: Dear Recruiters
#29It is rather arrogant I think.
Yes especially the dealbreakers section. I don't know why a lot of developers are so compelled to only work with a specific programming language (i.e ruby/python). Does it really matter that much what the underlying codebase is when you know the fundamentals of computer science. I pick up new languages if the job requires it but I wouldn't toss out a job offer for 200K because the company uses a certain stack that I had a bad experience with in the past.
Re: Dear Recruiters
#30Considering we're in something of an IT bubble at the moment, I sometimes wonder if we'll look back on stuff like this in a few years and think "Wow, we had it good".
[deleted]