3 ms·

Recently I interviewed with Discovery, although not for any of these exact 3 positions. Had an HR screen, timed online programming test, then a phone call with

Recently I interviewed with Discovery, although not for any of these exact 3 positions. Had an HR screen, timed online programming test, then a phone call with the hiring manager -- who then ghosted me. He seemed obsessed with MongoDB migrations and upset I hadn't done any. I realize it prob wasn't you and it's up the hiring manager but ghosting is unprofessional, IMHO. If I'm going to take time to pass a technical test and have 2 hour-long phone call interviews, at least e-mail me later to say no thanks.

dang 8y ago
The rules at the top ask you not to post replies like this. I don't disbelieve you, but we have no way to check the truth or fairness of these posts, and they're off topic. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17207359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17207359 and marked it off-topic.
- mmt 8y ago
  Where are they on-topic? Truth or fairness, as checked by moderators, isn't a standard for discussion anywhere else on HN. For that matter, does that mean you're checking the truth and/or fairness of all of these job postings?
  - dang 8y ago
    They could be on topic in lots of places, assuming they relate to some interesting point under discussion and are not just a grudge against X. You're right in part, but standards aren't binary, they involve messy interpretation. There's no law of the excluded middle—it's all middle and it's all included. So instead of asking 'what are the axioms to be universally applied on this site', you need to ask 'what in this context will make the site better or worse in the long run'. I know that's unsatisfying but we can't do better. So the point is more like this: had we a way to allow only the replies to job ads which are true and fair, while filtering out the misleading or disgruntled ones, that might make the job board better overall. But we have no such way, and the damage caused by false or misleading replies is the bigger risk. Job hunting and hiring both suck, but there are limits to what we can do about it here. Allowing Who Is Hiring threads to turn into a combination job-board-plus-Glassdoor-style pelting range would not benefit the community in the long run. Knowing HN's limits and respecting them is one of the secrets of keeping this place going well. Not that it's a secret.
    - ordinaryperson 8y ago
      Dan, I appreciate the thoughtful and measured response. But let me offer a counterpoint: you could apply the same logic to any comment anywhere. Take yesterday's topic on Microsoft potentially acquiring GitHub. How many anonymous comments are there slagging Microsoft (or GitHub)? No one has any way to verify the credibility of comments there, either. The question is: do complaining about a negative experience (real or imagined) present any long-term benefit to the community and to the original poster? If the comment is junk or fake then the poster has the ability to respond as such (or profess ignorance). But the community gains by either being warned about a potential job opportunity or seeing how the hirer responds. I understand not turning this into Glassdoor/Yelp bottom-feeding but I was specifically referencing the recent hiring practices of this particular company, not reviewing them as a whole or judging their leadership or corporate direction or promotion systems etc. I think if you really want no replies it should be hardcoded into the HN architecture, but the antiseptic posting of job listing, without any potential input from people who've recently gone through the process, is IMHO a loss for the HN community -- if I just want unadorned job listings, I can get that many other places than HN, and with much better filtering technology. I recognize this is a gray area but I really think commenters should be allowed to share interviewing experiences with companies who post here -- keeping HN from becoming a complaining ground is more complex than just banning comments, IMHO. Thanks for listening.
      - mmt 8y ago
        > you could apply the same logic to any comment anywhere. That was, essentially, my point all along. Unfortunately, I think that what dang is saying is that the job posting thread requires special treatment and guidelins that are, inexplicably [1] far more strict than the overall HN guidelines, in order to protect the community from damage. > If the comment is junk or fake then the poster has the ability to respond as such (or profess ignorance). Or even not dignify it with a response! Surely, HN readers can be trusted to tell difference between "just a grudge" (or corporate equivalent of ad-hominem or any other actually off-topic comment) and a legitimate comment, even complaint, about the hiring process. > I think if you really want no replies it should be hardcoded into the HN architecture I have also suggested this in the past, especially since it won't incur any editorial/moderation effort or ambiguity. [1] This lack of explanation or reasoning is one of my recurring objections

dang 8y ago

The rules at the top ask you not to post replies like this. I don't disbelieve you, but we have no way to check the truth or fairness of these posts, and they're off topic. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17207359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17207359 and marked it off-topic.

mmt 8y ago
Where are they on-topic? Truth or fairness, as checked by moderators, isn't a standard for discussion anywhere else on HN. For that matter, does that mean you're checking the truth and/or fairness of all of these job postings?
- dang 8y ago
  They could be on topic in lots of places, assuming they relate to some interesting point under discussion and are not just a grudge against X. You're right in part, but standards aren't binary, they involve messy interpretation. There's no law of the excluded middle—it's all middle and it's all included. So instead of asking 'what are the axioms to be universally applied on this site', you need to ask 'what in this context will make the site better or worse in the long run'. I know that's unsatisfying but we can't do better. So the point is more like this: had we a way to allow only the replies to job ads which are true and fair, while filtering out the misleading or disgruntled ones, that might make the job board better overall. But we have no such way, and the damage caused by false or misleading replies is the bigger risk. Job hunting and hiring both suck, but there are limits to what we can do about it here. Allowing Who Is Hiring threads to turn into a combination job-board-plus-Glassdoor-style pelting range would not benefit the community in the long run. Knowing HN's limits and respecting them is one of the secrets of keeping this place going well. Not that it's a secret.
  - ordinaryperson 8y ago
    Dan, I appreciate the thoughtful and measured response. But let me offer a counterpoint: you could apply the same logic to any comment anywhere. Take yesterday's topic on Microsoft potentially acquiring GitHub. How many anonymous comments are there slagging Microsoft (or GitHub)? No one has any way to verify the credibility of comments there, either. The question is: do complaining about a negative experience (real or imagined) present any long-term benefit to the community and to the original poster? If the comment is junk or fake then the poster has the ability to respond as such (or profess ignorance). But the community gains by either being warned about a potential job opportunity or seeing how the hirer responds. I understand not turning this into Glassdoor/Yelp bottom-feeding but I was specifically referencing the recent hiring practices of this particular company, not reviewing them as a whole or judging their leadership or corporate direction or promotion systems etc. I think if you really want no replies it should be hardcoded into the HN architecture, but the antiseptic posting of job listing, without any potential input from people who've recently gone through the process, is IMHO a loss for the HN community -- if I just want unadorned job listings, I can get that many other places than HN, and with much better filtering technology. I recognize this is a gray area but I really think commenters should be allowed to share interviewing experiences with companies who post here -- keeping HN from becoming a complaining ground is more complex than just banning comments, IMHO. Thanks for listening.
    - mmt 8y ago
      > you could apply the same logic to any comment anywhere. That was, essentially, my point all along. Unfortunately, I think that what dang is saying is that the job posting thread requires special treatment and guidelins that are, inexplicably [1] far more strict than the overall HN guidelines, in order to protect the community from damage. > If the comment is junk or fake then the poster has the ability to respond as such (or profess ignorance). Or even not dignify it with a response! Surely, HN readers can be trusted to tell difference between "just a grudge" (or corporate equivalent of ad-hominem or any other actually off-topic comment) and a legitimate comment, even complaint, about the hiring process. > I think if you really want no replies it should be hardcoded into the HN architecture I have also suggested this in the past, especially since it won't incur any editorial/moderation effort or ambiguity. [1] This lack of explanation or reasoning is one of my recurring objections