3 ms·

In-person interviews have an even worse problem: if your wife is rejected after one of those, she has to worry not merely that she looks lame in a video, but se

by pg 16y ago

In-person interviews have an even worse problem: if your wife is rejected after one of those, she has to worry not merely that she looks lame in a video, but seems lame in person. But you don't find the concept of interviews disgusting, presumably because it is already a familiar one. Which suggests that your real problem with this technology is its novelty.

Tichy 16y ago
Personally, I just don't like the way I look on videos. I think it is harder to make a good impression on video. I acknowledge that I might look as weird in RL as on video, but in RL I can decide not to think about it. Anyway, I can imagine this video thing taking off, unless there are legal problems. Don't know why, but I think in the uk you are not supposed to include photograps with applications. Perhaps to prevent racism?
- notahacker 16y ago
  Photos are probably frowned on to discourage racism, ageism and the good old fashioned "we'll only invite the pretty ones in for interview". It's also common practice to remove date of birth from CVs. It's more a case of being considered inappropriate than legal barriers...a friend of mine recruiting abroad found the idea of attached photos nearly as amusing as the adjacent salary demands. I think that the video thing will suffer more from being considered a bit odd or time consuming compared with skimming through text, especially for large non-creative employers looking to fill a quota. On the other hand, webcam interviews could start to replace the first-stage phone interview.
old-gregg 16y ago
But you don't find the concept of interviews disgusting, presumably because it is already a familiar one. Which suggests that your real problem with this technology is its novelty. No, I'm not one of "those people" :-) My initial reaction was negative because filming yourself a hundred times is a torture. I failed to see what's in it for folks who are looking for jobs and are pretty miserable already. Your argument is also flawed because you are comparing video clips to interviews like they're going to replace them which they won't. One can make an argument that this approach will eliminate the need to apply to hundreds of jobs. That would be great, but how? The ratio of resumes/replies is determined not by technology but by applicants/position ratio. I've exchanged a few emails with Nicolas and he feels confident that the product will make life easier for candidates as well, I really want him to be right/succeed. At least YC companies are using it right: they actually save time for an applicant.
betterlabs 16y ago
Not sure I agree. Its not about technology or familiarity. Video is not (yet) a comfortable medium of communication for most people. They won't be confident on video, and most likely will come off less perfect than they really are. I think it could potentially be bad for employees as well as employers. Comfort is critical if an employer wants to truly evaluate someone's skill set. Maybe video becomes a comfortable medium in the future, but that would perhaps be another generation.

by pg 16y ago

Tichy 16y ago

Personally, I just don't like the way I look on videos. I think it is harder to make a good impression on video. I acknowledge that I might look as weird in RL as on video, but in RL I can decide not to think about it. Anyway, I can imagine this video thing taking off, unless there are legal problems. Don't know why, but I think in the uk you are not supposed to include photograps with applications. Perhaps to prevent racism?

notahacker 16y ago
Photos are probably frowned on to discourage racism, ageism and the good old fashioned "we'll only invite the pretty ones in for interview". It's also common practice to remove date of birth from CVs. It's more a case of being considered inappropriate than legal barriers...a friend of mine recruiting abroad found the idea of attached photos nearly as amusing as the adjacent salary demands. I think that the video thing will suffer more from being considered a bit odd or time consuming compared with skimming through text, especially for large non-creative employers looking to fill a quota. On the other hand, webcam interviews could start to replace the first-stage phone interview.

old-gregg 16y ago

But you don't find the concept of interviews disgusting, presumably because it is already a familiar one. Which suggests that your real problem with this technology is its novelty. No, I'm not one of "those people" :-) My initial reaction was negative because filming yourself a hundred times is a torture. I failed to see what's in it for folks who are looking for jobs and are pretty miserable already. Your argument is also flawed because you are comparing video clips to interviews like they're going to replace them which they won't. One can make an argument that this approach will eliminate the need to apply to hundreds of jobs. That would be great, but how? The ratio of resumes/replies is determined not by technology but by applicants/position ratio. I've exchanged a few emails with Nicolas and he feels confident that the product will make life easier for candidates as well, I really want him to be right/succeed. At least YC companies are using it right: they actually save time for an applicant.

betterlabs 16y ago

Not sure I agree. Its not about technology or familiarity. Video is not (yet) a comfortable medium of communication for most people. They won't be confident on video, and most likely will come off less perfect than they really are. I think it could potentially be bad for employees as well as employers. Comfort is critical if an employer wants to truly evaluate someone's skill set. Maybe video becomes a comfortable medium in the future, but that would perhaps be another generation.