4 ms·

I mean you do tell the kids they can't participate (in that league). There are woman playing ice hockey but none of them have survived an interview (professiona

I mean you do tell the kids they can't participate (in that league). There are woman playing ice hockey but none of them have survived an interview (professional try out with an NHL team and so they've all been told no. --- It's novel because it's not how its done. It's a big part of the stack rank hate is that people just blindly rank everybody and then adjust compensation that way. Taking more granular detail into account just isn't done. But also because you're hired to do a job. If you do the criteria of the job then you should get a satisfactory rating. Similar to test taking, if you demonstrate knowledge of the material then you should pass. If you got 99/100 questions right and everybody else got 100/100 then you shouldn't get an F despite you being the worse of the group.

randomdata 2y ago
> Taking more granular detail into account just isn't done. Where'd you dream up that idea? I operate a restaurant, so I at least have first-hand experience in overseeing barista-like workers, and I don't know how you could possibly ignore such details? I'm sure I'm not perfect at it. I'm certainly not accurately capturing the butterfly flapping its wings in Africa. But you'd never flat-out ignore the blatantly obvious like shift times.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  Perhaps we've gone so deep into the thread that you've forgotten how we got here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41983561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41983561 Perhaps with a statement like "But you'd never flat-out ignore the blatantly obvious like shift times." then you understand why people don't like stack ranking because yes people do ignore blatantly obvious things.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    Not forgotten, but not particularly relevant. The context we followed only inherited the athletics analogy and how it parallels with baristas. Sometimes it is necessary to ignore the blatantly obvious. You can't meaningfully alter the ranking of a sports team because their star player was out with a broken leg. You have to accept the circumstances for what they are. But I'm not sure that translates to something like shift times which are fundamental to the game.

randomdata 2y ago

> Taking more granular detail into account just isn't done. Where'd you dream up that idea? I operate a restaurant, so I at least have first-hand experience in overseeing barista-like workers, and I don't know how you could possibly ignore such details? I'm sure I'm not perfect at it. I'm certainly not accurately capturing the butterfly flapping its wings in Africa. But you'd never flat-out ignore the blatantly obvious like shift times.

lesuorac 2y ago
Perhaps we've gone so deep into the thread that you've forgotten how we got here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41983561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41983561 Perhaps with a statement like "But you'd never flat-out ignore the blatantly obvious like shift times." then you understand why people don't like stack ranking because yes people do ignore blatantly obvious things.
- randomdata 2y ago
  Not forgotten, but not particularly relevant. The context we followed only inherited the athletics analogy and how it parallels with baristas. Sometimes it is necessary to ignore the blatantly obvious. You can't meaningfully alter the ranking of a sports team because their star player was out with a broken leg. You have to accept the circumstances for what they are. But I'm not sure that translates to something like shift times which are fundamental to the game.