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

Targeted Bets: An alternative approach to the job hunt

seanmuirhead.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 113 posts

Re: Targeted Bets: An alternative approach to the job hunt

#41

Post by strix_varius »

drillsteps5 wrote: post #6

> Instead of applying broadly, identify 5-10 specific opportunities you genuinely want. Do that. >Get in contact with current employees at the company. It is important that you send more than one email. Don't do that. >I've gotten dozens of emails asking for meetings and referrals. I've never gotten one in my entire career, and I was hiring manager in multiple companies/roles. >If the company is Don't never ever EVER…

> I've never gotten one in my entire career, and I was hiring manager in multiple companies/roles.

This may say more about how people interpret you, personally, than about the situation generally.

Re: Targeted Bets: An alternative approach to the job hunt

#42

Post by webel0 »

biophysboy wrote: post #22

Why isn't there a job search website that forces you to adopt this targeted bet strategy? The game theory of job-hunting incentivizes both submitters and receivers to adopt inefficient practices. Why not limit applications to one per day to signal genuine interest? Then you can demonstrate skill at an in-person interview, or at your local legally-bound interview center? (my very boring sci-fi prediction)

I tried to build this back around 2020. I think my concept was trying to be too cute in several places. But this was the basic idea.

I found that neither side of the market wanted to rethink the market, they just wanted something that worked well for them. Even today, job seekers may be reaching for something like this but employers have no interest; there is a glut in the market.

I’m sure I never quite got the messaging correct. However, I distinctly recall that triplebyte attempted a pivot in this same vein and also failed bad.

Re: Targeted Bets: An alternative approach to the job hunt

#43

Post by johnnyanmac »

ebiester wrote: post #12

It's interesting that the first thing you see in the comments is "don't contact anyone." Right now we're in a weird place - if you have a network, you're pretty well off. If your network isn't hiring, or you are early in your career, it's brutal trying to get through the noise. The truth is that proof of work matters. But the big problem is that proof of work is easy to fake right now. It takes being creative. I get…

>The truth is that proof of work matters. But the big problem is that proof of work is easy to fake right now.

The big shame is that the hardest PoW to fake right now tends to be under NDA's and proprietary codebases. So if you aren't in the position to make major contributions to FOSS in your free time or "code for fun", it feels like a soft reset all over again. As if those yeras in industry mean nothing.

I especially dread the idea of needing to jump on the very doomscrolling places I left at the start of the pandemic just to get a potential lead. My mental health over 2025 was already pretty bottom of the barrel without that.

Re: Targeted Bets: An alternative approach to the job hunt

#44

Post by tekacs »

wrs wrote: post #14
tekacs wrote: post #3

> If the company is When the people you're interviewing with are 'already senior' (e.g. direct reports to the CEO), you can sometimes make your case worse rather than better, because it feels like you're going over their head. So rather than size... - If the interviewer(s) in question feel like you're trying to circumvent them, you're probably making your case worse. - The kind of CEO that tends to meddle in things b…

I interpreted this post as being about how you get an interview in the first place, so the hope would be that the CEO forwards your mail to this senior person you're worried about.

Even still - a lot of senior folks, sadly, don't take it super well when candidates are forwarded their way by people above them when they're running a process.

Re: Targeted Bets: An alternative approach to the job hunt

#45

Post by smnscu »

drillsteps5 wrote: post #6

> Instead of applying broadly, identify 5-10 specific opportunities you genuinely want. Do that. >Get in contact with current employees at the company. It is important that you send more than one email. Don't do that. >I've gotten dozens of emails asking for meetings and referrals. I've never gotten one in my entire career, and I was hiring manager in multiple companies/roles. >If the company is Don't never ever EVER…

I've interviewed 3k people with Karat as a professional interviewer, and several hundred more as a hiring manager. The very few times I received direct emails from candidates attempting to circumvent the normal process were met with unequivocally negative reactions. First, I find the Internet sleuthing they'd undergo to find my email address a bit creepy – for example, Karat would only show the first name and profile pic for your interviewer. But more importantly, the sheer audacity to go for such a stunt would firmly anchor them in the box of people I'd never want to work with. I'd still be polite and professional to a fault, of course, but I'd never seriously consider them past that point.

Re: Targeted Bets: An alternative approach to the job hunt

#46

Post by johnnyanmac »

biophysboy wrote: post #22

Why isn't there a job search website that forces you to adopt this targeted bet strategy? The game theory of job-hunting incentivizes both submitters and receivers to adopt inefficient practices. Why not limit applications to one per day to signal genuine interest? Then you can demonstrate skill at an in-person interview, or at your local legally-bound interview center? (my very boring sci-fi prediction)

> Why not limit applications to one per day to signal genuine interest?

I'm not sure if this strategy taken at scale will end up being much different from the LinkedIn model. You just slow down the pipeline on the employee's side while the employer still ends up with way too many applications to process each day. Or the reverse in an employees' market.

It still might be worth a shot, though. Especially if it can cut down on fake AI profiles that LinkedIn has become rife with. Any job board that can commit to a "human experience" is worth its weight in gold at this point.

Re: Targeted Bets: An alternative approach to the job hunt

#47

Post by johnnyanmac »

smnscu wrote: post #45
drillsteps5 wrote: post #6

> Instead of applying broadly, identify 5-10 specific opportunities you genuinely want. Do that. >Get in contact with current employees at the company. It is important that you send more than one email. Don't do that. >I've gotten dozens of emails asking for meetings and referrals. I've never gotten one in my entire career, and I was hiring manager in multiple companies/roles. >If the company is Don't never ever EVER…

I've interviewed 3k people with Karat as a professional interviewer, and several hundred more as a hiring manager. The very few times I received direct emails from candidates attempting to circumvent the normal process were met with unequivocally negative reactions. First, I find the Internet sleuthing they'd undergo to find my email address a bit creepy – for example, Karat would only show the first name and profile…

>circumvent the normal proces

I might agree in good, normal times.

But in bad times where "the normal process" can't even let you have a human look at your resume, it's different. "circumventing" is at worst a simple act of rebellion to annoy people who can change their process. It's a best a chance to actually get the response that isn't even granted with a form rejection these days.

Re: Targeted Bets: An alternative approach to the job hunt

#48

Post by johnnyanmac »

drillsteps5 wrote: post #21
ebiester wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I get them all the time. Usually from junior engineers. I don't hold it against them - it's good advice. So, what's your trick to avoid getting skipped because a contract recruiter or internal recruiter is going through resumes at 6 a minute and looking for keywords nowhere near the job profile? What's your trick to get through the noise? Right now, it's brutal from junior to staff, and if your network isn't hiri…

You got me there, I don't have one. I'm senior in my career but haven't been able to build a network that I can rely on when I'm looking for my next role, so I'm in the same boat with all of you guys and gals. I do maintain though that cold reach out is more often harmful due to the barrier of HR/recruiting built to prevent this from happening, and you trying to go around that will likely cause trouble. Also, when yo…

>I do maintain though that cold reach out is more often harmful due to the barrier of HR/recruiting built to prevent this from happening, and you trying to go around that will likely cause trouble.

If you haven't been on the market the past 2-3 years: I think we're at a point where we do indeed need to all "cause trouble" if we want anything to change. It's better than being ignored (AKA a soft blacklist) in my regards. If you think that way, the worst you can get is a "no".

>Also, when you reach out to the employees for "the referral", what does this even mean?

It used to mean what you described, yes. I worked with this person in a previous job or college and can vouch to their work ethic at worst, or ability to perform this exact role at best. A referral for me should be a 5 second decision based on seeing the person's name.

I'd personally never give a referral out to someone without that; at best, maybe I'd setup a small call myself and see their work for myself before giving a "cold referral". Most Code referrals don't even do that much, sadly. But I guess enough cold referrals have happened that even those are limited in effectiveness nowadays (as well as there simply not being many openings).

Re: Targeted Bets: An alternative approach to the job hunt

#49

Post by johnnyanmac »

antonymoose wrote: post #28
guessmyname wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't do that. > Don't never ever EVER do that. Why not? Is the world really going to implode because someone wants a job so badly that they slip a message into some random CEO’s inbox, an inbox that’s probably already flooded with irrelevant emails from strangers asking irrelevant things? Don’t ever convince yourself that someone is so important you can’t email them. That’s a self-defeating mindset. Send the email…

A judicious email to the hiring manager? Sure, why not roll the dice. We’ve had candidates spam our every Senior+ level staff at my current job (many not even in the relevant department) trying to get their resume boosted. Those went from candidate to rejects very quickly.

Never spam a company, I agree. If you're going to "circumvent", pick one or two (and honestly, even 2 is pushing it) contacts you know the most and email them. And make sure they are at least related to the department you're going into unless it's an director/executive person (I'm not much more effective in getting someone a sales role as you would be going to the online portal). Anymore than that and you won't be seen any differently from a spam caller.

The goal is to personalize, not spray and pray all at one company.

Re: Targeted Bets: An alternative approach to the job hunt

#50

Post by johnnyanmac »

lbrito wrote: post #29
hansvm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people don't though, and their referrals are much more valuable than dozens of additional applications. Much like many other decisions you're making in the job market, it's a polarizing choice that increases your overall chances when the alienated class of people isn't too large. If 90% of people ignore those emails but your chance of getting a first-round interview goes up 5x compared to a cold application when…

The flaw in that thought is that doing this nagging is thinking about it as a zero-effort thing you can do to increase your odds. It is not zero-effort. You (candidate) will have to expend time looking up people and messaging them. There are more effective ways of spending your time than that.

>There are more effective ways of spending your time than that.

I'm not sure in this day and age. Your goal is to get in front of a human, and that's harder than ever. If you spend hundreds of applications with no response, even a "You're blacklisted" response from a human will feel better than the cold neglect of today.

It's not zero effort, but I argue it's less effort than being months into your search and trying to find another 20 companies that you seem to be qualified for. Having the human element can also be encouraging too instead of the 50th dang workday application.

Post reply on HN