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

Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

yegor256.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 674 posts

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#421

Post by chadscira »

lwhalen wrote: post #407
ryandrake wrote: post #31

Unlike most of HN (it seems), I like hearing from recruiters, because despite the very low signal-to-noise ratio, there's always that remote chance that one of them could be able to set me up with a "dream job". It's zero cost to me to politely reply to a recruiter and ask for more info, and I try to at least respond to everyone. What I've found is that they must have a lot of candidates they're juggling because fall…

I take it one step further: the email address on my resume is a black hole. Its only purpose is to feed an autoresponder who kicks back a warm, generic, email thanking the recruiter for their time, acknowledging they have a difficult job, and lays out my requirements for any position: what I am and am not interested in doing, my salary/hourly/per-project requirements, my location requirements (100% remote), etc. At t…

The "100% remote" requirement is a filter in itself.

Out of 200 job offers from recruiters you're lucky if one is open to a remote placement.

Nevertheless I think being out there and reducing your time invested in this slow process is still worth it, and a great idea.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#422

Post by 27182818284 »

lwhalen wrote: post #407
ryandrake wrote: post #31

Unlike most of HN (it seems), I like hearing from recruiters, because despite the very low signal-to-noise ratio, there's always that remote chance that one of them could be able to set me up with a "dream job". It's zero cost to me to politely reply to a recruiter and ask for more info, and I try to at least respond to everyone. What I've found is that they must have a lot of candidates they're juggling because fall…

I take it one step further: the email address on my resume is a black hole. Its only purpose is to feed an autoresponder who kicks back a warm, generic, email thanking the recruiter for their time, acknowledging they have a difficult job, and lays out my requirements for any position: what I am and am not interested in doing, my salary/hourly/per-project requirements, my location requirements (100% remote), etc. At t…

I think you're right to thank them for their difficult job. I seriously got bored just reading the description of your setup. What percent get through to the second email? Is it like 10%? 50%?

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#423

Post by ryandrake »

lwhalen wrote: post #407
ryandrake wrote: post #31

Unlike most of HN (it seems), I like hearing from recruiters, because despite the very low signal-to-noise ratio, there's always that remote chance that one of them could be able to set me up with a "dream job". It's zero cost to me to politely reply to a recruiter and ask for more info, and I try to at least respond to everyone. What I've found is that they must have a lot of candidates they're juggling because fall…

I take it one step further: the email address on my resume is a black hole. Its only purpose is to feed an autoresponder who kicks back a warm, generic, email thanking the recruiter for their time, acknowledging they have a difficult job, and lays out my requirements for any position: what I am and am not interested in doing, my salary/hourly/per-project requirements, my location requirements (100% remote), etc. At t…

Have you ever actually got a job that you accepted through this method? Also, what wizardry did you use to get 200+ recruiter E-mails a month? Do you just have a highly optimized resume out there on all the job sites or something?

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#424

Post by sebringj »

I don't talk to them because I probably am not smart enough, am too old, went to a crap school, only want to do remote consulting anyway and most of all, I don't care one bit how Google does, besides my browser search working. In the end I still make more than 1% of developers so I'm not too choked up about it. You could say I'm stupid-happy.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#425

Post by DesiLurker »

nolemurs wrote: post #143
ryandrake wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're not looking to fill any particular role. They're just looking for smart people I've found this to be decidedly not true, from many recruiter contacts. They have a role in mind they're trying to fill and if you point out that it's far more junior than what you're looking for, the conversation's over. Think about how must companies hire. The hiring manager fights internally and finally gets a req for a very s…

> I'd love to see a company literally just looking to snap up smart people and then have them come in and kind of define their own role, one where they can add the most value. Nobody does this! I don't know about letting people "define their own role", but a lot of the biggest companies are constantly hiring without a specific role in mind. If you've got thousands of employees then your best strategy is just hire the…

I have seen this 'fungible bricklayer' approach at amazon & have to tell you it cant be any more misguided. It may work for generic web software where learning curve is not as steep but any point you are dealing with vertical technologies like wireless or multimedia it just falls flat on its face. And the byproduct is poorly thought out software full of band-aids. unfortunately this kind of nonsense often becomes pervasive where management itself is very non-technical (google may be an exception though).

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#426

Post by chadgeidel »

lwhalen wrote: post #407
ryandrake wrote: post #31

Unlike most of HN (it seems), I like hearing from recruiters, because despite the very low signal-to-noise ratio, there's always that remote chance that one of them could be able to set me up with a "dream job". It's zero cost to me to politely reply to a recruiter and ask for more info, and I try to at least respond to everyone. What I've found is that they must have a lot of candidates they're juggling because fall…

I take it one step further: the email address on my resume is a black hole. Its only purpose is to feed an autoresponder who kicks back a warm, generic, email thanking the recruiter for their time, acknowledging they have a difficult job, and lays out my requirements for any position: what I am and am not interested in doing, my salary/hourly/per-project requirements, my location requirements (100% remote), etc. At t…

I'd pay at least a few dollars per month / tens of dollars per year for this service.

I'm not kidding. Dear HN reader, please steal this idea!

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#427

Post by toephu2 »

munificent wrote: post #248
metaphorm wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the problem with the way Google interviews is that, despite it being heavily standardized, it is not sensitive to non-algorithmic skills and talents that interviewees have. It will _only_ pass candidates who are unusually good at algorithm puzzles, on whiteboards, under time pressure.

> it is not sensitive to non-algorithmic skills and talents that interviewees have. I work at Google and do interviews (though I don't enjoy them). We do ask questions around domain expertise, software design, etc. It's not all just coding and algorithms. A good question: 1. Has a low enough floor that a poor candidate can still make some progress and not feel like they are doing poorly and get stressed out. 2. Has a…

"I basically read some Wikipedia articles and spent a few hours in the hotel cramming Algorithms in a Nutshell, and I managed to squeak through."

Then you must be much smarter than the average Silicon Valley software engineer. Congrats on being born that smart. You should thank your parents.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#428

Post by base698 »

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #212
arenaninja wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're misquoting the article, and the "Dunning-Kruger" is uncalled for. Here's the full quote: > If she would have started her email with "We're looking for an algorithm expert," we would never have gotten any further and would not have wasted our time. Clearly, I'm not an expert in algorithms. There is no point in giving me binary-tree-traversing questions; I don't know those answers and will never be inter…

> We should avoid the notion that naive string concatenation is a problem that impedes our ability to deliver software, except for niche applications, this is not the case. The attitude that really basic Computer Science concepts like algorithms and algorithmic complexity are irrelevant is exactly why software projects are so frequently FUBAR. The Dunning-Kruger reference is spot on. The original author doesn't even…

I would say in my experience most projects are messed up from lack of separation of concerns--on many levels. Followed by, different teams maintaining the same code base all with their own stands.

Being generally messy and not considering the over all design hurts way more than just basic CS.

I have seen plenty of performance issues related to CS knowledge but a lot of times those are masked by messiness.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#429

Post by toephu2 »

sdflkd wrote: post #347
munificent wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is not sensitive to non-algorithmic skills and talents that interviewees have. I work at Google and do interviews (though I don't enjoy them). We do ask questions around domain expertise, software design, etc. It's not all just coding and algorithms. A good question: 1. Has a low enough floor that a poor candidate can still make some progress and not feel like they are doing poorly and get stressed out. 2. Has a…

> I don't think you have to be unusually good at algorithms. I basically read some Wikipedia articles and spent a few hours in the hotel cramming Algorithms in a Nutshell, and I managed to squeak through. Either a lie or you are unusually good at algorithms. People work > 50 hours on Leetcode, CTCI, etc. to try and get a job at Big 4. A couple of hours just reading Wikipedia articles isn't even close to the amount of…

Unless you're near genius-level smart. Then you will easily get offers from all the big4 w/o much prep.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#430

Post by koyote »

stuckagain wrote: post #37
iainmerrick wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be interested in hearing from people who work at Google, and get to figure out a cool algorithm for solving an interesting puzzle-problem more an about once a year. I bet there aren't very many. In my experience, the stuff you do in this kind of interview has very little relation with the stuff you do in the actual job. (I wish it did! I love those algorithmic puzzles.)

I don't know about the average but at Google I probably write a new call to std::set::find twice an hour, and it's important to know that std::set is a red-black tree, and how std::set::find is implemented and how much that costs and so forth. Fluency with data structures and algorithms is not some kind of brain candy. It's absolutely necessary to get the job done.

Maybe I am missing something but if you're using set::find so often, why not an unordered_set?
Post reply on HN