4 ms·

> but it indicates carelessness in the hiring process Perhaps we are using the word careless differently, but I don't see how using heuristics like this implie

> but it indicates carelessness in the hiring process Perhaps we are using the word careless differently, but I don't see how using heuristics like this implies carelessness on behalf of the employer. If anything, it seems to indicate that the employer is making a well-reasoned choice to balance economic constraints with company values. I run a small software consulting firm and have now hired three people (not too many). I believe that attention to detail and pride in how you present yourself, either via your resume or your code quality, is essential. For this reason, I think applicants should spell-check their resume (or use Grammarly). In fact, we even mention this in our company values page: > We value correct grammar and a strong grasp of the English language. > We write with a clear and professional tone in our external communication. > We try not to send vague or confusing emails. > We invest in improving our writing, presentation, and conversational skills. http://innolitics.com/about/#communicate-clearly http://innolitics.com/about/#communicate-clearly

mikeash 9y ago
Do you have other people proofread and spellcheck all of your external communication?
- setr 9y ago
  I couldn't care less if I make a typo in HN; But an email to my professor, I'll review several times without even thinking about it. Probably won't get someone else to proofread it, but that's because I trust my own competence in reviewing my own short texts, and in writing English. But my friends from India, they'll send me emails to proofread if its important, because, y'know, it's sensible, correct and most importantly, it's polite to do so. It seems absurd to me that the significance of typos needs to be defended; Maybe the treatment of resumes as any more important than a text message, but if we assume it's important, then why the hell would you let something as simple as typos through easily?
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I can see that it's good to avoid typos. But at the same time, why the hell are you judging the suitability of a professional in a complex technical field based on typos in something they only write once every few years? The argument for the latter seems to be circular: we reject people on that basis because typos indicate a broader lack of care, which they indicate because we reject people on that basis.
    - setr 9y ago
      Its mostly a question of where to spend effort; In the same way I'm probably not going to read a paper with a shoddily written abstract, unless external reasons apply (ie the paper was recommended to me by someone trustworthy), it doesn't make sense for me to try to parse a shoddily written resume. It takes more effort to do so, and its nonsensical for the person not to put effort into it, because its only written once ebery few years, and because its the first point of contact. If you're going to operate at the level of a tenth grader, why would I assume you have anything more to offer than what a tenth grader might? Of course the metric might fail, but hey, there's a hundred other resumes to have to go through too, and you managed to imply you're incompetent right off the bat, so I'm probably better off looking elsewhere. Theres also the aspect that I personally don't want to put up with shoddy writing, and also the fact that these are not long documents. Its like 1-3 pages half-sentences and spacing everywhere; I'm hardly asking the world of you by requiring you bother verifying what you write. >But at the same time, why the hell are you judging the suitability of a professional in a complex technical field based on typos in something they only write once every few years Because, with the exception of some rare positions, there are a lot of people suitable for the job. There are also a lot of people who will apply without being suitable. And a lot of the people who apply at random, aka sloppily, are presumably also sloppy about the rest of the process. So filtering on sloppiness is probably a decent utility; of course it'll remove the sloppy suitable candidates, and it won't remove the non-sloppy unsuitable candidates, but hey. Alternatively we can do modern hr stuff like filtering resumes on key-word searches, so if you're an expert in Oracle 11d but not Oracle 11e.... Every filter is fucked somehow; but typos seem to me one of the least fucked, precisely because its so easy to avoid. You only write it once every few years.

mikeash 9y ago

Do you have other people proofread and spellcheck all of your external communication?

setr 9y ago
I couldn't care less if I make a typo in HN; But an email to my professor, I'll review several times without even thinking about it. Probably won't get someone else to proofread it, but that's because I trust my own competence in reviewing my own short texts, and in writing English. But my friends from India, they'll send me emails to proofread if its important, because, y'know, it's sensible, correct and most importantly, it's polite to do so. It seems absurd to me that the significance of typos needs to be defended; Maybe the treatment of resumes as any more important than a text message, but if we assume it's important, then why the hell would you let something as simple as typos through easily?
- mikeash 9y ago
  I can see that it's good to avoid typos. But at the same time, why the hell are you judging the suitability of a professional in a complex technical field based on typos in something they only write once every few years? The argument for the latter seems to be circular: we reject people on that basis because typos indicate a broader lack of care, which they indicate because we reject people on that basis.
  - setr 9y ago
    Its mostly a question of where to spend effort; In the same way I'm probably not going to read a paper with a shoddily written abstract, unless external reasons apply (ie the paper was recommended to me by someone trustworthy), it doesn't make sense for me to try to parse a shoddily written resume. It takes more effort to do so, and its nonsensical for the person not to put effort into it, because its only written once ebery few years, and because its the first point of contact. If you're going to operate at the level of a tenth grader, why would I assume you have anything more to offer than what a tenth grader might? Of course the metric might fail, but hey, there's a hundred other resumes to have to go through too, and you managed to imply you're incompetent right off the bat, so I'm probably better off looking elsewhere. Theres also the aspect that I personally don't want to put up with shoddy writing, and also the fact that these are not long documents. Its like 1-3 pages half-sentences and spacing everywhere; I'm hardly asking the world of you by requiring you bother verifying what you write. >But at the same time, why the hell are you judging the suitability of a professional in a complex technical field based on typos in something they only write once every few years Because, with the exception of some rare positions, there are a lot of people suitable for the job. There are also a lot of people who will apply without being suitable. And a lot of the people who apply at random, aka sloppily, are presumably also sloppy about the rest of the process. So filtering on sloppiness is probably a decent utility; of course it'll remove the sloppy suitable candidates, and it won't remove the non-sloppy unsuitable candidates, but hey. Alternatively we can do modern hr stuff like filtering resumes on key-word searches, so if you're an expert in Oracle 11d but not Oracle 11e.... Every filter is fucked somehow; but typos seem to me one of the least fucked, precisely because its so easy to avoid. You only write it once every few years.