Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 132 posts

Re: undefined

#31

Post by operatingthetan »

lazypenguin wrote: post #26
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #8

No. A job being “verified” doesn’t solve the main problem post around 2023. Every single job opening gets hundreds of openings within the first day of it being opened. If you are looking for a job as any type of generic developer - full stack, front end, mobile, back end, it’s almost impossible to stand out from the crowd. No, “I reversed a btree on the whiteboard to get into big tech as a mid level developer” doesn’…

Yes, we recently posted for an entry/mid level position and we got 1800 applications in a few days. It’s impossible to filter the list, I spent several hours to see how feasible it was and after getting through maybe 150 applications I gave up. We’re a small team, we don’t have the resources to cut through the noise without just blanket rejecting people. There doesn’t need to be a board that vets jobs, there needs to…

Do what everyone is doing (for better or worse): feed those into a CLI LLM, have it give you a csv of the top 20 candidates based on some criteria, manually review those.

Re: undefined

#32

Post by sdevonoes »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #8

No. A job being “verified” doesn’t solve the main problem post around 2023. Every single job opening gets hundreds of openings within the first day of it being opened. If you are looking for a job as any type of generic developer - full stack, front end, mobile, back end, it’s almost impossible to stand out from the crowd. No, “I reversed a btree on the whiteboard to get into big tech as a mid level developer” doesn’…

99% of the engineers out there are generic ones (including myself)… and most of us are working.

Re: undefined

#33

Post by aeonfox »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #12
BelVisgarra wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> confirming the recruiter’s identity and requiring employers to periodically confirm that the position is still active. If a position is only listed due to a requirement, and is already basically guaranteed to someone making an internal transfer, knowing the recruiter's identity and having a manager pinky-swear the job offer is real does nothing.

Add a visible count of how many verified applicants got verified jobs at the verified business. Higher count increases confidence.

Re: undefined

#34

Post by joeyguerra »

the job-to-be-done is connecting the job to the right person. Not job verification.

I built a mobile app dev team in fintech years ago. I remember one person was literally selling their house and moving and was looking for a job. Call it luck, serendipitous, what you will, but the "connection" was made at the right time, right place.

How do we solve that problem more effectively? Cuz right now it's a roll of the dice, constant linkedin messages, etc.

Re: undefined

#35

Post by fortran77 »

spy888 wrote: post #28

You have to think through the applicant issue. As a hiring manager every time I post a job i get hundreds of applicants and most are not viable for different reasons. A verified listing does nothing to help me deal with the influx of low quality and fake applicants.

There's two sides to this. Companies need to be able to make sure they're able to locate (and not miss) viable candidates. But job-seekers need to know there's a legitimate company and an actual job. There are many job scams out there, especially for entry level, low-skill jobs.

In my early days, I once went through three interviews for a small "start up." On the third round, the founder admitted he couldn't pay me in anything but "equity" even though I specifically asked about funding and compensation on the first interview. (I got a very early "Craigs List" to pull the job listing--with an personal reply from Craig Newmark--and the "employer" settled with me for several thousand after I sent a demand letter and filed a claim in Santa Clara County small claims court for fraud.)

Re: undefined

#36

Post by siliconc0w »

Cyrpto had some interesting takes on these sort of problems that we haven't really applied more broadly.

The way I'd design a job board is require the applicant to escrow X and the job poster to escrow Y*X. Y is is the trust ratio. Given a bad experience, either the side can 'burn' the other and send both escrowed amounts to charity. An okay trust ratio might be 10, meaning they'll give you 10:1 burn ratio. A good one might be 100 or 1000. At that point they are essentially handing you a big stick to beat them with if they misbehave.

This would entirely eliminate spam and ghost jobs - suddenly everyone would be magically really responsive and polite.

Re: undefined

#37

Post by maxaw »

spy888 wrote: post #28

You have to think through the applicant issue. As a hiring manager every time I post a job i get hundreds of applicants and most are not viable for different reasons. A verified listing does nothing to help me deal with the influx of low quality and fake applicants.

Curious - are there not good tools for filtering through applications? there must be a lot of llm related offerings

Re: undefined

#38

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

sdevonoes wrote: post #32
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #8

No. A job being “verified” doesn’t solve the main problem post around 2023. Every single job opening gets hundreds of openings within the first day of it being opened. If you are looking for a job as any type of generic developer - full stack, front end, mobile, back end, it’s almost impossible to stand out from the crowd. No, “I reversed a btree on the whiteboard to get into big tech as a mid level developer” doesn’…

99% of the engineers out there are generic ones (including myself)… and most of us are working.

If you take away my AWS account and my ability to “add on to what Becky said” and “look at things from a 1000 foot view”, I am a “generic developer” and was one for 25 years.

That doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that “generic developers” are a dime a dozen and it’s hard to stand out from the crowd using an ATS. I just said I had the same issue when experimenting with ATS’s.

Re: undefined

#39

Post by smnscu »

Otta in the UK (now eaten by the inexplicably-named Welcome to the Jungle) used to have a very involved vetting process during company onboarding, and I could verify that it was a great service as both a candidate and a hiring manager. To replicate what you want ("every listing is verified") there's no silver bullet but a good vetting process like that goes a long way.

Another site I like is cord.com, which seems to prioritise companies where recruiters are active on that website, I've had a good experience with that one as well, as you get to chat with an actual recruiter in a matter of hours or days.

Re: undefined

#40

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

operatingthetan wrote: post #31
lazypenguin wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we recently posted for an entry/mid level position and we got 1800 applications in a few days. It’s impossible to filter the list, I spent several hours to see how feasible it was and after getting through maybe 150 applications I gave up. We’re a small team, we don’t have the resources to cut through the noise without just blanket rejecting people. There doesn’t need to be a board that vets jobs, there needs to…

Do what everyone is doing (for better or worse): feed those into a CLI LLM, have it give you a csv of the top 20 candidates based on some criteria, manually review those.

What are the top 20 candidates if you just need a random “full stack developer”? All of their resumes look exactly the same.
Post reply on HN