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

The Problem with Job Titles

blog.workshape.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 103 posts

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#31

Post by k__ »

hunglee2 wrote: post #13
k__ wrote: post #9

I like their ideas, but the only thing that changed for me with the shapes is, that I have a profile that doesn't match any job offering. So no win for me, lol

Hey k_3, its Hung, CEO of Workshape.io here. Thanks for signing up and for your comment. We know that the 'no match' screen feels like failure, even when its anything but! Its simply a case that no employer has seen the wisdom of designing a job opportunity that meets your interest! And its highly likely to be a question of scale i.e not enough companies on the platform. In any case, we need to get better at that scr…

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't take this personally.

I just wanted to say that this is a bigger problem than you think. The companies have some skills in mind when they want to hire and packing them into a job title with description or a radar chart doesn't change anything.

I think everyone is fully aware that these titles doesn't mean much. I have read so much different descriptions of one title, that I don't read the titles anymore.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#32

Post by GordyMD »

arno_v wrote: post #29

So instead of the ambiguous text 'Software Engineer' we now have 10 ambiguous texts ranging from 'Analysis' to 'Data Science'. I don't really see how that solves a problem, since these underlying concepts are also quite hard to define consistently.

Thanks for your comments. Whilst we cannot remove ambiguity completely from our solution - we can minimise it. The ambiguity of text really comes into play in CVs and job descriptions. We attempt to minimise the ambiguity by asking software engineers/anyone involved in software development to describe their work in a uniform way and not relying up the traditional artefacts. So whilst the terms have ambiguity to them, companies and people are answering the same question and we are using those answers to match people so that they can begin a conversation.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#33

Post by jqueryin »

I'm not a fan of the WorkShape matching algorithm. The form isn't in regards to proficiencies but rather what your ideal job function would be spanning all proficiencies.

Realistically, one's experience isn't likely to match up with their ideal working environment.

Trying to pair an employer's requirements to an applicants ideal job would require an order of magnitude more users on both sides before you see realistic matches.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#34

Post by dagw »

dkyc wrote: post #19
dagw wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would interpret a testing of 0 as willing to write the minimal number of tests needed to get their code working and 5 as willing to spend all their time developing the company wide testing framework and testing policy and making sure it's continually updated and being followed, as well as being the last person in the chain to sign off on the fact that any software leaving the shop as passed all the tests. Basically…

Your interpretation seems like a reasonable scale - however, it is a very vague definition of "0". I'm sure some people want a 0 to mean an actual 0, like a blind developer asked to do UI development.

OK, let's take 0 to mean does not write tests on principle and 1 to mean writes minimal tests grudgingly if required by policy.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#36

Post by hunglee2 »

Peroni wrote: post #30

It really was only a matter of time before Hung Lee created something like this. He's one of a very small group of people that truly 'gets' hiring in todays environment and I'm really not surprised to see workshape gaining traction. We're still relatively new users but we have already arranged a handful of interviews via the platform.

Thanks Peroni - appreciate your comment. We don't forget your early and continuous support was critical to Workshape.io. Love to see how we can help further - time for us to meet up?

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#37

Post by JustSomeNobody »

onion2k wrote: post #23
dkyc wrote: post #2

I think the results have to do with your questioning. For example, I don't want to spend my time testing, but I have to do it if I want to write high quality software. So some people give testing a 0, because it's not something you actively want to do. And others give testing a 5, because they know that whatever job they'll take, they probably have to test their code. I don't really see much difference to the classic…

For example, I don't want to spend my time testing, but I have to do it if I want to write high quality software. Why? Someone has to do the testing, obviously, but why does it have to be you just because you want to write good quality software? Why can't you work with a brilliant QA[1] team who can generate an awesome set of processes and tests based on your specifications? You don't have to do the bit you find bori…

Before the code even gets to QA it needs to be functional and as bug free as possible. As a developer, I _hate_ it when my fellow developers send crap to QA because they could not be bothered to make it not crap. It is unprofessional.

The goal should be to produce SW that does not get rejected at QA.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#38

Post by arno_v »

GordyMD wrote: post #32
arno_v wrote: post #29

So instead of the ambiguous text 'Software Engineer' we now have 10 ambiguous texts ranging from 'Analysis' to 'Data Science'. I don't really see how that solves a problem, since these underlying concepts are also quite hard to define consistently.

Thanks for your comments. Whilst we cannot remove ambiguity completely from our solution - we can minimise it. The ambiguity of text really comes into play in CVs and job descriptions. We attempt to minimise the ambiguity by asking software engineers/anyone involved in software development to describe their work in a uniform way and not relying up the traditional artefacts. So whilst the terms have ambiguity to them,…

Ok, if you are indeed asking the same questions that helps. I would add some information per item with some explanation or definition, so it is as clear as possible what is meant by the different terms.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#39

Post by GordyMD »

arno_v wrote: post #38
GordyMD wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your comments. Whilst we cannot remove ambiguity completely from our solution - we can minimise it. The ambiguity of text really comes into play in CVs and job descriptions. We attempt to minimise the ambiguity by asking software engineers/anyone involved in software development to describe their work in a uniform way and not relying up the traditional artefacts. So whilst the terms have ambiguity to them,…

Ok, if you are indeed asking the same questions that helps. I would add some information per item with some explanation or definition, so it is as clear as possible what is meant by the different terms.

It is available right now if you hover over the labels on the chart. It is definitely not immediately obvious though so we shall have to work on that - thanks!

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#40

Post by ukigumo »

So, first things first: Love the software and the concept of visualizing your activity spread in a radar plot. Well done!

Now for the rant: I am an IT architect. There are many architects working in IT but few of them do anything that is related to what I do. I see job postings for Enterprise Sharepoint Architect and I cry a little, others for CTO/Architect/senior developer and I question if they are maybe hiring for 3 positions and are just really bad at writing jobspecs. I often have VPs working under my direction and govern the work of Project Managers and yet people contact me and ask if I'm interested in a devops role.

Recruitment is broken and I hope companies like workshape.io are here to fix it.

Post reply on HN