4 ms·

> No matter how we feel, the process still goes through recruiters. That's right and they simply look for keywords on my various online profiles and send me th

> No matter how we feel, the process still goes through recruiters. That's right and they simply look for keywords on my various online profiles and send me the standard "I'm really impressed by your experience, I think you'll be a great fit" message, even though 50% of the time I'm clearly not a great fit. Why do they get this wrong? Because they are "are bottom-of-the-totem pole, lowest-common-denominator bottom-feeders" to quote the parent post... PS - I wish it weren't so.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
Is that a matter of competence, or a deliberate tradeoff regarding false positives and false negatives? Or are they just motivated to show high numbers?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  Almost universally these types of behaviors emerge from self-interest. So it's pretty safe to assume that whatever approach recruiters tend to follow, they do so because it is the optimum for them. That means either that the incentives are a problem, or that the seemingly foolish recruiting techniques you've been exposed to are more effective than you might realize, not being a recruiter yourself. Probably a mix.
  - TuringNYC 6y ago
    The problem is that sometimes what is "optimal to the recruiter" is not optimal for the applicant nor optimal to society. This is why applicants get frustrated or angry. I heard a recruiter once (socially) tell me that they ignore all resumes with foreign names for sales positions because on average their yield on such calls is too low to bother. Fair -- absolutely not. Optimal to recruiter -- probably. Good for the organization - no. Good for society - no. I'd love if there was something company owners and operators did to prevent things like this which are local maximums but globally inefficient (as well as unethical and unfair)
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      Your last para is my exact point. The recruiters are acting in self interest. Expecting that they do otherwise is a doomed hope. It is up to owners, and transitively up to society at large, to make and if need be enforce policies that encourage the desired behavior.
    - etripe 6y ago
      > I'd love if there was something company owners and operators did to prevent things like this which are local maximums but globally inefficient (as well as unethical and unfair) Well, continuing your line of thinking: what's the incentive structure for company owners/stakeholders? And how does it stimulate them to seek global efficiency? In vernacular, "theory" is completely different from the scientific jargon meaning of a "theory", which leads to people saying "Evolution is just a theory". Similarly, the economic jargon term "efficiency" is not at all the same as the commonplace definition you used. The economic definition barely covers anything beyond profit maximisation and cost minimisation and is precisely the reason we see so many externalised costs. Companies are "efficient" only in monetary terms, but that doesn't preclude waste, missed opportunities, myopia and environmental or societal fallout.
- Groxx 6y ago
  tbh I suspect it's at a fairly reasonable effort/reward point for them. There's so little you can factually learn from a short glance that confidence will always be low, and there are so many applicants (because applying is super low cost) that spending sufficient time to get a clearer answer is not worthwhile. There probably are some high-quality-only recruiter groups out there, but they're not what most companies use. Which is probably why referrals are so valued in many places.
- michaelt 6y ago
  I suspect, much like women on dating websites, people receive many more low-effort messages from recruiters, because the subset of recruiters sending out low-effort messages send out far more of them.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

Is that a matter of competence, or a deliberate tradeoff regarding false positives and false negatives? Or are they just motivated to show high numbers?

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Almost universally these types of behaviors emerge from self-interest. So it's pretty safe to assume that whatever approach recruiters tend to follow, they do so because it is the optimum for them. That means either that the incentives are a problem, or that the seemingly foolish recruiting techniques you've been exposed to are more effective than you might realize, not being a recruiter yourself. Probably a mix.
- TuringNYC 6y ago
  The problem is that sometimes what is "optimal to the recruiter" is not optimal for the applicant nor optimal to society. This is why applicants get frustrated or angry. I heard a recruiter once (socially) tell me that they ignore all resumes with foreign names for sales positions because on average their yield on such calls is too low to bother. Fair -- absolutely not. Optimal to recruiter -- probably. Good for the organization - no. Good for society - no. I'd love if there was something company owners and operators did to prevent things like this which are local maximums but globally inefficient (as well as unethical and unfair)
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    Your last para is my exact point. The recruiters are acting in self interest. Expecting that they do otherwise is a doomed hope. It is up to owners, and transitively up to society at large, to make and if need be enforce policies that encourage the desired behavior.
  - etripe 6y ago
    > I'd love if there was something company owners and operators did to prevent things like this which are local maximums but globally inefficient (as well as unethical and unfair) Well, continuing your line of thinking: what's the incentive structure for company owners/stakeholders? And how does it stimulate them to seek global efficiency? In vernacular, "theory" is completely different from the scientific jargon meaning of a "theory", which leads to people saying "Evolution is just a theory". Similarly, the economic jargon term "efficiency" is not at all the same as the commonplace definition you used. The economic definition barely covers anything beyond profit maximisation and cost minimisation and is precisely the reason we see so many externalised costs. Companies are "efficient" only in monetary terms, but that doesn't preclude waste, missed opportunities, myopia and environmental or societal fallout.
Groxx 6y ago
tbh I suspect it's at a fairly reasonable effort/reward point for them. There's so little you can factually learn from a short glance that confidence will always be low, and there are so many applicants (because applying is super low cost) that spending sufficient time to get a clearer answer is not worthwhile. There probably are some high-quality-only recruiter groups out there, but they're not what most companies use. Which is probably why referrals are so valued in many places.
michaelt 6y ago
I suspect, much like women on dating websites, people receive many more low-effort messages from recruiters, because the subset of recruiters sending out low-effort messages send out far more of them.