3 ms·

In a vacuum that might be true, but software engineers know other software engineers, and there are plenty of forums for discussing hiring experiences, includin

In a vacuum that might be true, but software engineers know other software engineers, and there are plenty of forums for discussing hiring experiences, including HN. If a company systematically treats people they don't intend to go further with like crap, their reputation with other candidates will suffer. You'd like failed candidates to not talk shit about your company when their friend considers applying.

wvenable 7y ago
Not giving feedback though is not "treating them like crap" in fact the opposite is far more likely to be true (as interpreted by the non-hired candidate). You literally can't go wrong doing nothing.
- bradlys 7y ago
  You can do wrong - I do not reinterview with startups that do not give feedback at the end of the interview process. So, if you're a startup that's struggling to hire - good luck getting that candidate to come back in 6 months to a year when you're struggling. (Plenty of companies flip-flop on hire/no-hire as time goes on)
  - TheRealPomax 7y ago
    That's not doing wrong as far as the company is concerned, though. Harsh as it may sound, this is just another version of a customer going "I will take my business elsewhere!" and walking out of a store: the store couldn't care less, because your business is irrelevant. In the same way, "your" interviewing is entirely irrelevant, the only thing the company cares about is that they get applications from qualified folks, whether that's repeat applications or not. You not coming back in 6 months doesn't stop them from getting new applications from other folks with just as good a skill set as you. Of course for you, personally, it sucks and you want to know how to improve, but for the company the very act of talking to you after your temporary relationship is over does come with the potential for incredible harm. It's unlikely, but a liability they have zero responsibility to take on. As far as companies are concerned, not interacting with anyone they don't have a business relationship with is solid business practice, and while applying, you're just an application; you're not someone whose education and growth path they are responsible for. You would be, if you got hired, but until then you are not their responsibility in the slightest and any unpaid, no-contract interaction between them and you is a liability to them. Doing nothing is by far the smartest thing the company can insist on. Even if it sucks for us applicants.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
wheelie_boy 7y ago
It's mostly about risk/reward and effort. Giving detailed feedback takes more time, and is inherently more risky than a timely, somewhat bland rejection letter. Candidates are much more likely to feel slighted when they are given specific criticism, which they may or may not agree with.
swalsh 7y ago
Except, that's the norm. Word isn't going to spread that a company is normal.
- my_username_is_ 7y ago
  Norms change. In tech especially quickly.

wvenable 7y ago

Not giving feedback though is not "treating them like crap" in fact the opposite is far more likely to be true (as interpreted by the non-hired candidate). You literally can't go wrong doing nothing.

bradlys 7y ago
You can do wrong - I do not reinterview with startups that do not give feedback at the end of the interview process. So, if you're a startup that's struggling to hire - good luck getting that candidate to come back in 6 months to a year when you're struggling. (Plenty of companies flip-flop on hire/no-hire as time goes on)
- TheRealPomax 7y ago
  That's not doing wrong as far as the company is concerned, though. Harsh as it may sound, this is just another version of a customer going "I will take my business elsewhere!" and walking out of a store: the store couldn't care less, because your business is irrelevant. In the same way, "your" interviewing is entirely irrelevant, the only thing the company cares about is that they get applications from qualified folks, whether that's repeat applications or not. You not coming back in 6 months doesn't stop them from getting new applications from other folks with just as good a skill set as you. Of course for you, personally, it sucks and you want to know how to improve, but for the company the very act of talking to you after your temporary relationship is over does come with the potential for incredible harm. It's unlikely, but a liability they have zero responsibility to take on. As far as companies are concerned, not interacting with anyone they don't have a business relationship with is solid business practice, and while applying, you're just an application; you're not someone whose education and growth path they are responsible for. You would be, if you got hired, but until then you are not their responsibility in the slightest and any unpaid, no-contract interaction between them and you is a liability to them. Doing nothing is by far the smartest thing the company can insist on. Even if it sucks for us applicants.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

wheelie_boy 7y ago

It's mostly about risk/reward and effort. Giving detailed feedback takes more time, and is inherently more risky than a timely, somewhat bland rejection letter. Candidates are much more likely to feel slighted when they are given specific criticism, which they may or may not agree with.

swalsh 7y ago

Except, that's the norm. Word isn't going to spread that a company is normal.

my_username_is_ 7y ago
Norms change. In tech especially quickly.