3 ms·

This didn't read like a complaint at all, but, rather, merely helpful advice on how to navigate their interview process. Over the years of perusing this thread

by mmt 9y ago

This didn't read like a complaint at all, but, rather, merely helpful advice on how to navigate their interview process. Over the years of perusing this thread, it seems that more and more commentary has been deemed off-topic. As such, I'd ask that the rules at the top text be more explicit in what is actually permitted here, which is clearly much narrower than the rest of HN. Alternatively, maybe just make it post-only with no comments permitted, since I, for one, would no longer even mention something like an typo'd URL for fear it would be considered complaining.

dang 9y ago
There's an entire genre of people bringing hard feelings from job interview processes into these threads and sticking them to the companies posting ads. Some of this must surely be justified, some one-sided, and some completely misleading. The trouble is that we have no way to tell which is which, and getting into detail would only take the threads further into the weeds. So I don't see what choice we have but to treat all of it as off topic. In a way it's too bad, because job searching sucks and hiring sucks and it would be good if there were a process to sort through all this. But I'm skeptical that any internet forum can function as that kind of courtroom, and certainly the Who Is Hiring threads cannot.
- mmt 9y ago
  An explanation isn't what I was asking for. What I was asking for was a more explicit or even technological restriction to remove the ambiguity and the potential mine field for users of a special set of rules for this thread. I already understood the reasoning, though I firmly disagree, especially with the conclusion. As I believe there's nothing wrong with a thread going "into the weeds" so long as the discussion remains civil and relevant to the comment chain, something hardly unique to Who Is Hiring. As such, you certainly have the choice of merely allowing complaints among other commentary, as is the general case on the rest of the forum.
- throwaway55356 9y ago
  It's really important to be able to fairly criticize a company for their interviewing/hiring practices. I think it's in-context if they are a poster on Who is hiring. Some of us recognize the regulars on here. We want to figure out if they are just trolling for resumes, a recruiter that is trying to be stealthy, or if they are just plain not serious about hiring (a waste of time). I think it's facetious to say that the Who is hiring thread should be held to a courtroom's standard. A lot of companies have a hiring process that is definitely nowhere near that, no matter how much they may believe in it. It is certainly important to tell the truth. It is also inappropriate to call out individuals by name (as has happened a few times). I think it's also pejorative to say that there is a "genre" of people bringing hard feelings from interview. We are just people. The hiring process is very cynical these days and most of us trying to get a job are on our best behavior, and we have similar expectations from the other side.
  - dang 9y ago
    (By 'genre' I meant the type of comment, not the type of people.) I don't disagree, but it doesn't answer the point: we have no way to tell what's true vs. false in these posts. Bad hiring practices are a thing and disgruntled applicants are a thing. Who Is Hiring threads are in no position to tell one apart from the other. Just imagine the mess if people started litigating the details here? But they can't, anyhow, because no matter what someone posts, the person representing the company can usually only reply with something generic. A situation in which it's impossible to hear both sides and impossible to determine the facts is not one that is possible for the rest of us to decide fairly.
    - mmt 9y ago
      But so what if it's messy? As the parent commenter pointed out, this isn't a courtroom. It's a discussion forum. The only decision to be made (at least of the yea/nay form you seem to be positing) is in pursuing a particular job posting. Surely the vast majority of HN readers are savvy enough not to let mere sour grapes dissuade them. Perhaps more imporantly, so what? Does the loss of volume, if there is even is any, either in job postings or in applicants, actually hurt anyone? Is the increased volume on the thread really a problem in the face of the "[-]" clickable feature? Does it justify essentially stifling all commentary speech here?
- alacombe 9y ago
  I'd add a tad of context to my original comment. I probably have a lot of hard feelings against companies hiring behavior, some justified, some merely emotional. Karat however went over the top. They're trying to be extra-nice by triple checking that everything went well, but don't follow up on negative comments. It's not rocket science to properly define test cases and supported logic to run them so that the candidate focus on the implementation, the screening implements it, but not the timed phone call. Also, tricking candidates with edges cases not mentioned orally but not written is borderline dishonest.

by mmt 9y ago

dang 9y ago

There's an entire genre of people bringing hard feelings from job interview processes into these threads and sticking them to the companies posting ads. Some of this must surely be justified, some one-sided, and some completely misleading. The trouble is that we have no way to tell which is which, and getting into detail would only take the threads further into the weeds. So I don't see what choice we have but to treat all of it as off topic. In a way it's too bad, because job searching sucks and hiring sucks and it would be good if there were a process to sort through all this. But I'm skeptical that any internet forum can function as that kind of courtroom, and certainly the Who Is Hiring threads cannot.

mmt 9y ago
An explanation isn't what I was asking for. What I was asking for was a more explicit or even technological restriction to remove the ambiguity and the potential mine field for users of a special set of rules for this thread. I already understood the reasoning, though I firmly disagree, especially with the conclusion. As I believe there's nothing wrong with a thread going "into the weeds" so long as the discussion remains civil and relevant to the comment chain, something hardly unique to Who Is Hiring. As such, you certainly have the choice of merely allowing complaints among other commentary, as is the general case on the rest of the forum.
throwaway55356 9y ago
It's really important to be able to fairly criticize a company for their interviewing/hiring practices. I think it's in-context if they are a poster on Who is hiring. Some of us recognize the regulars on here. We want to figure out if they are just trolling for resumes, a recruiter that is trying to be stealthy, or if they are just plain not serious about hiring (a waste of time). I think it's facetious to say that the Who is hiring thread should be held to a courtroom's standard. A lot of companies have a hiring process that is definitely nowhere near that, no matter how much they may believe in it. It is certainly important to tell the truth. It is also inappropriate to call out individuals by name (as has happened a few times). I think it's also pejorative to say that there is a "genre" of people bringing hard feelings from interview. We are just people. The hiring process is very cynical these days and most of us trying to get a job are on our best behavior, and we have similar expectations from the other side.
- dang 9y ago
  (By 'genre' I meant the type of comment, not the type of people.) I don't disagree, but it doesn't answer the point: we have no way to tell what's true vs. false in these posts. Bad hiring practices are a thing and disgruntled applicants are a thing. Who Is Hiring threads are in no position to tell one apart from the other. Just imagine the mess if people started litigating the details here? But they can't, anyhow, because no matter what someone posts, the person representing the company can usually only reply with something generic. A situation in which it's impossible to hear both sides and impossible to determine the facts is not one that is possible for the rest of us to decide fairly.
  - mmt 9y ago
    But so what if it's messy? As the parent commenter pointed out, this isn't a courtroom. It's a discussion forum. The only decision to be made (at least of the yea/nay form you seem to be positing) is in pursuing a particular job posting. Surely the vast majority of HN readers are savvy enough not to let mere sour grapes dissuade them. Perhaps more imporantly, so what? Does the loss of volume, if there is even is any, either in job postings or in applicants, actually hurt anyone? Is the increased volume on the thread really a problem in the face of the "[-]" clickable feature? Does it justify essentially stifling all commentary speech here?
alacombe 9y ago
I'd add a tad of context to my original comment. I probably have a lot of hard feelings against companies hiring behavior, some justified, some merely emotional. Karat however went over the top. They're trying to be extra-nice by triple checking that everything went well, but don't follow up on negative comments. It's not rocket science to properly define test cases and supported logic to run them so that the candidate focus on the implementation, the screening implements it, but not the timed phone call. Also, tricking candidates with edges cases not mentioned orally but not written is borderline dishonest.