Noticing You're Confused
arr.am
Noticing You're Confused
1–10 of 104 posts
Re: Noticing You're Confused
#2Clearly there was fraud here. But I'm curious about the the interview process.
If the person was a fraud, how did he get through the technical and management interviews? Surely talking to someone for 5 mins would help you figure out if they were technically competent. So apparently the interview process had zero decision value. Why bother interviewing candidates then? They should just check references and get on with it. Or fix your interview process.
Re: Noticing You're Confused
#3Clearly there was fraud here. But I'm curious about the the interview process. If the person was a fraud, how did he get through the technical and management interviews? Surely talking to someone for 5 mins would help you figure out if they were technically competent. So apparently the interview process had zero decision value. Why bother interviewing candidates then? They should just check references and get on with…
Yeah, I certainly Noticed I Was Confused while reading this story.
Re: Noticing You're Confused
#4Yes I have that sense of "Confusion' just now about this article.
So let me understand, "Sam" was best technical candidate ever, knowing all the answers and everything but somehow he lied about who he was?!
Over time people build distrust toward recruiters, why: - they use cold calling, - as soon as you resign they call to find who are your references, not to offer you a job, but to find who is lead contact in previous company they can call and so they could someone just to get that 20+% fee... - in order for these to succeed they need to use social engineering techniques (they pretend they are friendly) - they post fake job ads to collect CV ... - have I mentioned huge fees for literally doing nothing .... and on and on and on ....
Who ever was wrote this article he should just zip it ....
Re: Noticing You're Confused
#5You say he passed all your questions with flying colours, everyone liked him, etc.
If he hadn't lied about his specific experience would you have hired him?
Re: Noticing You're Confused
#6Yes I have that sense of "Confusion' just now about this article. So let me understand, "Sam" was best technical candidate ever, knowing all the answers and everything but somehow he lied about who he was?! Over time people build distrust toward recruiters, why: - they use cold calling, - as soon as you resign they call to find who are your references, not to offer you a job, but to find who is lead contact in previo…
Honestly I think this article should be reported and banned from hacker news it is probably self-promotion for the purpose of gaining more attention and potential leads and candidates with pretense "we are honest recruiter company"
Re: Noticing You're Confused
#7So "the rationalist community" relies on gut feelings? Now I'm confused and it's only the first non-italic paragraph.
Re: Noticing You're Confused
#8Clearly there was fraud here. But I'm curious about the the interview process. If the person was a fraud, how did he get through the technical and management interviews? Surely talking to someone for 5 mins would help you figure out if they were technically competent. So apparently the interview process had zero decision value. Why bother interviewing candidates then? They should just check references and get on with…
> If the person was a fraud, how did he get through the technical and management interviews? Surely talking to someone for 5 mins would help you figure out if they were technically competent. So apparently the interview process had zero decision value. Why bother interviewing candidates then? They should just check references and get on with it. Or fix your interview process.
There are many things people evaluate during the interview process. One of them is technical competence. Another is integrity.
From the story, it doesn't appear OP's interview process is broken.
Re: Noticing You're Confused
#9And in other things that never happened...
Re: Noticing You're Confused
#10Clearly there was fraud here. But I'm curious about the the interview process. If the person was a fraud, how did he get through the technical and management interviews? Surely talking to someone for 5 mins would help you figure out if they were technically competent. So apparently the interview process had zero decision value. Why bother interviewing candidates then? They should just check references and get on with…
Yeah, I certainly Noticed I Was Confused while reading this story.
The interviewee passed the questions, was well liked and the only note of confusion he mentions was 'Sam didn’t have a LinkedIn profile, and when I asked him why he said he turned it off because he got too much recruiter spam'.
For what is worth I also don't have a LinkedIn for the same reason any more..