3 ms·

You're doing a cost-benefit analysis on a completely arbitrary guess and then using that as the basis for your conclusion? That doesn't work, sorry. For exampl

You're doing a cost-benefit analysis on a completely arbitrary guess and then using that as the basis for your conclusion? That doesn't work, sorry. For example, what if in actuality, all other things being equal, they had a 1 in 10 chance focused vs. 1 in 300 chance sanitized, then the results would be 100% chance for the focused versus 33% chance of a response with the sanitized ones. I just used the same thing you did to make the numbers work the other direction. For the record, based on what I've seen and read, I do think there might be a case for the shotgunned approach, and I personally have had poor luck with the focused approach. But your numbers don't help prove it, sorry.

ghaff 11y ago
I think it really depends. I suspect that, for a lot of people, the best strategy is to focus time and energy on companies that they're particularly interested in, have some in with, have unusual qualifications that are a particularly good match for, etc. But, perhaps in parallel, cast a wider net with a more shotgun approach that doesn't devote a lot of time to any single company pre-interview.
logfromblammo 11y ago
That's not how probability works. 10 trials with a 10% success rate yields a 65.13% chance for at least one success. 100 trials with a 0.33% success rate yields a 28.39% chance for at least one success. You have to use the binomial probability theorem to determine any particular number of hits. trials! / ( successes! * failures! ) * P_success ^ successes * P_failure ^ failures
- hollaur 11y ago
  I actually read an article on Medium that goes into this in-depth. It's not published anymore, but I had it in a G-Doc, which I linked here: https://docs.google.com/a/freelanship.com/document/d/1pnuE_b_yvqgLd8kIBwnhvAp4LgsqjupHEeeG_1AKiSY/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/a/freelanship.com/document/d/1pnuE_b...
Negitivefrags 11y ago
Actually, with your numbers the chances are 65.1% and 28.3% respectively.

ghaff 11y ago

I think it really depends. I suspect that, for a lot of people, the best strategy is to focus time and energy on companies that they're particularly interested in, have some in with, have unusual qualifications that are a particularly good match for, etc. But, perhaps in parallel, cast a wider net with a more shotgun approach that doesn't devote a lot of time to any single company pre-interview.

logfromblammo 11y ago

That's not how probability works. 10 trials with a 10% success rate yields a 65.13% chance for at least one success. 100 trials with a 0.33% success rate yields a 28.39% chance for at least one success. You have to use the binomial probability theorem to determine any particular number of hits. trials! / ( successes! * failures! ) * P_success ^ successes * P_failure ^ failures

hollaur 11y ago
I actually read an article on Medium that goes into this in-depth. It's not published anymore, but I had it in a G-Doc, which I linked here: https://docs.google.com/a/freelanship.com/document/d/1pnuE_b_yvqgLd8kIBwnhvAp4LgsqjupHEeeG_1AKiSY/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/a/freelanship.com/document/d/1pnuE_b...

Negitivefrags 11y ago

Actually, with your numbers the chances are 65.1% and 28.3% respectively.