4 ms·

> I think remote work greatly increases the circle of people you're competing with. I don't recommend trying to be remote only unless you're world class - becau

by clarry 6y ago

> I think remote work greatly increases the circle of people you're competing with. I don't recommend trying to be remote only unless you're world class - because the world is technically your competition. Another perspective, from a remote-only employee away from all the world's tech hubs: there just aren't that many local jobs to choose from. Remote work really makes it possible for me to have a job in this field where every other company is complaining about shortage of talent.. and I don't have to leave home & everything behind and move into a big city (I don't like cities btw). I don't think I'm world class.

eloff 6y ago
I've only worked remote, initially for the same reason. But I think you're better than you assume, because you got the job out of a very large pool of potential candidates. By definition, you must've beat everyone who applied in that hiring round. Which reminds me of the first rule of finding a job - it's just like dating - is a numbers game. Your chance of success on any attempt might be low, but then you just need to make enough attempts and the limit of P(offer) approaches 1.
- mnm1 6y ago
  Even remote companies can only consider so many applicants. In our last three job searches that number started at 100 or so, was whittled down using resumes to 40 or so who were whittled down to a dozen or so by tech screens and finally we interviewed less than ten. One hour interview followed by a take home for the top three. We chose one of the three. No stupid whiteboard. No long ass interviews. The take home was an hour or two at most and the people doing it knew they were finalists. We're a small company. A bigger company will have a bigger pool. The irony is, they won't get better candidates and if they have a shit hiring process, they'll get much worse. Other than problems with a couple of people's background which would have been immediately flagged had we done a proper check, our hires have been great developers.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    > problems with a couple of people's background What kind of problems with people's backgrounds did you find relevant to doing a developer job?

by clarry 6y ago

eloff 6y ago

I've only worked remote, initially for the same reason. But I think you're better than you assume, because you got the job out of a very large pool of potential candidates. By definition, you must've beat everyone who applied in that hiring round. Which reminds me of the first rule of finding a job - it's just like dating - is a numbers game. Your chance of success on any attempt might be low, but then you just need to make enough attempts and the limit of P(offer) approaches 1.

mnm1 6y ago
Even remote companies can only consider so many applicants. In our last three job searches that number started at 100 or so, was whittled down using resumes to 40 or so who were whittled down to a dozen or so by tech screens and finally we interviewed less than ten. One hour interview followed by a take home for the top three. We chose one of the three. No stupid whiteboard. No long ass interviews. The take home was an hour or two at most and the people doing it knew they were finalists. We're a small company. A bigger company will have a bigger pool. The irony is, they won't get better candidates and if they have a shit hiring process, they'll get much worse. Other than problems with a couple of people's background which would have been immediately flagged had we done a proper check, our hires have been great developers.
- jlokier 6y ago
  > problems with a couple of people's background What kind of problems with people's backgrounds did you find relevant to doing a developer job?