7 ms·

I think the rate of non-fill is higher. But the reasons for it are all over the map. Everything from "we always leave a posting up even when we're not really lo

I think the rate of non-fill is higher. But the reasons for it are all over the map. Everything from "we always leave a posting up even when we're not really looking just in case the perfect candidate happens to walk through the door" but in the mean time nobody really pays attention to applicants, to "we weren't getting the applicants we wanted with this posting, so we took it down and are trying a new posting," to "we're legally obligated to post this, but we already have a plan about hiring" whether it's someone connected, someone internal, or a preference for H1B workers, to all kinds of other scenarios. Anybody who has ever applied for a dozen jobs, sent literate applications and outreach, and has heard from most of them never to months later regardless of actual fit for the job knows this.

fifilura 2y ago
I think "looking for the perfect candidate" is the most common reason by far. Great developers with domain knowledge are always possible to fit in, simply because they are money generators rather than a cost.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  100% agree. A big issue with tech is there are so many options and domains that for any particular job it can easily take even an amazing developer 6-9 months to get up to speed if they're unfamiliar with your particular tech stack or business area. That's not the case with most other professions - if I'm, for example, a professional violin player, I can play in basically any orchestra in the world and be proficient from day 1. So if you happen to find that unicorn who is not only a great developer but is also expert in the major areas of your tech stack and your business domain, you hire them in a heartbeat.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Sounds like something many technical professions have to deal with. Even with all the licenses and certs in the world, very few lawyers or doctors are just walking in and learning the process in a week. Other types of engineering need to understand the pipeline in another firm compared to their old one. A firefighter needs time to mesh with the team and figure out what equipment and tools are available here. But then again, I bet most of those also aren't trying to rely on AI to find talent.
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      I can't speak about lawyers, but you're definitely wrong about doctors (have a couple in my family). They can and do travel to completely new hospital systems and are expected to do their normal job immediately (and they do). Even within tech, I think the ramp-up time is faster for literally everyone else besides software engineers, just because the underlying technology can vary so much more (and its more important to be understood at an intimate level of detail) than for other roles.
      - rors 2y ago
        My girlfriend is an Orthopaedic Surgeon. Great when I've got a broken arm, or need shelves putting up. I wouldn't let her anywhere near my heart or brain. Medicine is super specialised. I hear you on geography though. Luckily the human body doesn't change too much between locations.
        Rumudiez 2y ago
        I think the point was that an orthopaedic surgeon can change hospitals and immediately get to work doing orthopaedic surgery. Sure, there might be some difference in how to clock in or who to report to, but they aren't suddenly working with a different type of human. Their job will remain constant despite changing environs, whereas moving between software companies could have you learning entirely different stacks that affect your process in fundamental ways.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        I'm not going to speak with authority on medicine, but my understanding is that residency takes some time if you leave your area, and there are various state compliances to keep in mind. So it doesn't sound like you can just grab any doctor and get them to work after a week. >because the underlying technology can vary so much more (and its more important to be understood at an intimate level of detail) than for other roles. If most jobs needed intimate knowledge of the language and constructs and weren't just CRUD apps built upon 3 frameworks, I'd almost agree with you. There are definitely roles that need that expertise, but I'd bet a yoke with a solid SWE fundamentals and comletetence in one language can ramp up for another stack relatively quickly. Nat least, no clowwr than any other engineering profession. Companies simply either oversell the work they need done or oversell how urgent the work is (compared to working the existing staff overtime).
epolanski 2y ago
I feel so lucky I haven't had to apply anywhere in my entire career through postings, the good thing of having a solid network is that you get to know who knows a consultant/freelancer before any position is created. I did post my availability few times on HN "who wants to be hired" but with poor results and lots of wasted time (as again, the person on the other end does not know me or has worked with me everything gets bureaucratic again). Also, all of the people I had hired for my clients came again from my network, there was never a public posting. There's also other benefits, in general, you don't get to do silly technical interviews, as you're bringing former coworkers you can vouch for. Not saying this can scale anywhere, but in smaller companies with good teams and professionals they always know someone from their previous jobs or their online communities (common in open source related githubs/discords/slacks) and I like it.
- bearjaws 2y ago
  This is really the best career advice. I was fortunately able to leave a terrible job 2 years ago and immediately had contract work, now I run my own business and get constant referrals from my network. I make more than ever, have incredible work-life balance, and for the most part love what I do. If you don't have a network, the moment you quit/lose a job you are dead to the world. Even now I have people approaching me for FTE roles, I haven't even worked with them for 2 years. Am I some god tier programmer? Not really, but I have a good track record and people always want to go to someone they already trusted.
  - Caius-Cosades 2y ago
    Yeah if you're not a social butterfly in the modern world you're just effed. Or about as good as dead, unless you happen to be extremely lucky.
    - rwyinuse 2y ago
      In academic / white collar work for sure. But if you're something like a skilled craftsman whose services are in demand, you can probably do fine with less social networking.
kube-system 2y ago
Having interviewed candidates for full-stack positions, and actually asked them about the entire stack (instead of just the backend), I'm surprised the number isn't higher.
- ARandomerDude 2y ago
  I've been amazed by how many times I've had this conversation: Applicant: "I love ${LANGUAGE} so much! It's amazing! I'm super passionate about it!" Me: "Oh that's great! What are some things you like about ${LANGUAGE}, and one or two things you wish the language designers had done differently?" Silence. (Replace language with database, framework, etc. as needed).
  - duxup 2y ago
    I always wonder how much that is influenced by the blog / social media world where a few (or even one) neat features in a product or language produces "I love this". So yeah they love it ... in so far as the social media expression goes.
    - supriyo-biswas 2y ago
      I feel that’s more of an artifact of American culture. I remember discussions where the stakeholder declined to use a technology, and said something like “we love X, but are concerned about Y.”
  - kube-system 2y ago
    Too often I find "full-stack" developers who only know how frameworks operate, but have no idea about how the computer actually works. "How do you do [x] in SQL?" > "I've always had the ORM handle that" "How do you do [x] in CSS" > "I use this CSS framework and it will do it for me" "How does a packet get between the front end and back end of your solution" > "I update the object state using [x] in the [y] framework"
    - wetpaws 2y ago
duxup 2y ago
I always wonder about the gathering resumes "just in case the perfect person applies" kind of idea. 1. Would anyone notice if the perfect candidate applied? 2. Does anyone even know what the perfect candidate's resume would look like / are those qualities on a resume / captured by a resume system? 3. Is the perfect candidate actually cold submitting resume to you? It feels like almost certainly these are all "no".
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  1. With the current AI bots, likely not. And that basically shows how inefficient these systems currently are. 2. The hiring manager does. The bot certainly does not. The odds of someone able to please the latter while meeting the former is low odds, for a candidate that's already low odds to begin with. 3. Not impossible. And that's all the justification they need as long as they aren't penalized for what basically a ghost job.
- drillsteps5 2y ago
  From my experience this is one of the ways it might work. Recruiting (company's internal function, which is part of HR) is tasked with soliciting profiles to see what's available on the market. There's no real position but the recruiter(s) invent one according to what the business told them they would eventually need. There's no hiring manager behind it (as there's no position to be be filled). Recruiter either periodically meets with the business group that requested the research or prepares a report on the results (number of resumes that came in, salary requirements, etc) and presents to the business group that requested it. So there's a reason these resumes are being solicited, it's just the reason is not to hire somebody. Sometimes it is done to justify business decision (ie to move to a different technology, or to expand to a new geographical area). Sometimes the business group _might_ be willing to open a new req if "the right candidate" comes up, but it's not guaranteed. It also allows HR and recruiting to justify their presence (they are busy despite the fact that the company might not be hiring at all currently). So there's reasons why these positions are posted and virtually none to prevent the company from doing that.
- Glyptodon 2y ago
  I think the answers to these is usually no, but there's one (questionable) person in leadership who's like "what if somebody from Google applies?" (or whatever equivalent). Never seen it work. Encountered it a few times. It tends to be magical thinking embellished by narratives around 10x engineers.
dcdc123 2y ago
I think another very common scenario is just eliminating the headcount. Companies cut headcount at a small scale all the time and the first one to go is usually the unhired.
ben_w 2y ago
> we always leave a posting up even when we're not really looking just in case the perfect candidate happens to walk through the door I've seen one that remained up after the company itself was closed down… which I knew about by having been in it when it closed; even before that, it was so out of date the salary offered was about 60% of what they'd paid me when I joined.
Miserlou57 2y ago
I was a contractor at a FAANG for a few years, and they handed me a job. In the few weeks of transition between the two (some paperwork, etc.) a job posting and req ID was created and posted on their jobs site. I freaked out for a bit, but everything worked out so I can only presume (in California) that was a requirement. What amazed me was it said (maybe on LinkedIN?) how many poor souls actually took the time to apply to the position. It was in the hundreds. I can't help but feel bad knowing they never had a chance.
- Scoundreller 2y ago
  Happens in public/gov sector regularly. PT role turning into FT… it’s going to the PTer. Temporary budget allocation became permanent and determinate spot becoming indeterminate? Same.
  - nullfield 2y ago
    In the public sector, tbh, the quality of candidates is so bad that everyone you get on the first round of applicants can be totally unqualified. So, you have to reopen the posting or start all over. And the second set of candidates is just as bad. So you close it and rewrite the description (not that fucking HR was competent at that in the first place), and go back to step one, which you are highly likely to repeat.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  linkedin has one-click applications for many large orgs; in all likelihood they saw something that said "FAANG" and "similar to you skills" and clicked it. a previous F500 company I worked for and was involved with hiring for was constantly posting jobs but only really took application seriously when they were referrals or through the company job site directly.
  - creer 2y ago
    By now this seems to be a serious problem. It's too easy to apply for a job. Disincentive all around: it's too easy to be lazy and over-specify or mis-describe a job offer. Then it's too easy for randos to apply because it's just a few clicks at most. Then it's too easy to dismiss with a broad comb because of all the randos. etc, etc. At this point the "job posting to job application" pipeline is completely broken and anyone who cares should rather leverage their network. Both to hire and apply, or use deliberately more obscure pathways such as professional society meetings or company web sites only, or job fairs, etc.
devmor 2y ago
I once got a developer position through a professional group on Facebook. My soon-to-be manager had to have HR create a job posting on a public facing portal so I could apply through it, despite already essentially giving me the position. I wonder how many people applied for that job before it was taken down.
freedomben 2y ago
I think you're right. Speaking from current personal experience, it's not unusual to get 500 applications for a job, especially higher-level jobs like Principal engineer (where people are chasing the title and salary). I would guess 90% of them are clearly underqualified. Of the other 10%, nearly half will never respond to a follow-up email to schedule interviews. Of those that do, 3/4 of them will reject the offer for various reasons. Given I have a lot of other duties beyond hiring, spending the hours upon hours it takes to sort through that only to have it yield no fruit is ... demoralizing at best. It seems to me that if somebody can actually solve the problem of increasing signal-to-noise ratio, they could do very well.
creer 2y ago
> I think the rate of non-fill is higher. I suspect far higher. Largely because there is no serious disincentive. The "study" may have assertained 1 in 5 but that doesn't mean there isn't much more.

fifilura 2y ago

I think "looking for the perfect candidate" is the most common reason by far. Great developers with domain knowledge are always possible to fit in, simply because they are money generators rather than a cost.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
100% agree. A big issue with tech is there are so many options and domains that for any particular job it can easily take even an amazing developer 6-9 months to get up to speed if they're unfamiliar with your particular tech stack or business area. That's not the case with most other professions - if I'm, for example, a professional violin player, I can play in basically any orchestra in the world and be proficient from day 1. So if you happen to find that unicorn who is not only a great developer but is also expert in the major areas of your tech stack and your business domain, you hire them in a heartbeat.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Sounds like something many technical professions have to deal with. Even with all the licenses and certs in the world, very few lawyers or doctors are just walking in and learning the process in a week. Other types of engineering need to understand the pipeline in another firm compared to their old one. A firefighter needs time to mesh with the team and figure out what equipment and tools are available here. But then again, I bet most of those also aren't trying to rely on AI to find talent.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    I can't speak about lawyers, but you're definitely wrong about doctors (have a couple in my family). They can and do travel to completely new hospital systems and are expected to do their normal job immediately (and they do). Even within tech, I think the ramp-up time is faster for literally everyone else besides software engineers, just because the underlying technology can vary so much more (and its more important to be understood at an intimate level of detail) than for other roles.
    - rors 2y ago
      My girlfriend is an Orthopaedic Surgeon. Great when I've got a broken arm, or need shelves putting up. I wouldn't let her anywhere near my heart or brain. Medicine is super specialised. I hear you on geography though. Luckily the human body doesn't change too much between locations.
      - Rumudiez 2y ago
        I think the point was that an orthopaedic surgeon can change hospitals and immediately get to work doing orthopaedic surgery. Sure, there might be some difference in how to clock in or who to report to, but they aren't suddenly working with a different type of human. Their job will remain constant despite changing environs, whereas moving between software companies could have you learning entirely different stacks that affect your process in fundamental ways.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      I'm not going to speak with authority on medicine, but my understanding is that residency takes some time if you leave your area, and there are various state compliances to keep in mind. So it doesn't sound like you can just grab any doctor and get them to work after a week. >because the underlying technology can vary so much more (and its more important to be understood at an intimate level of detail) than for other roles. If most jobs needed intimate knowledge of the language and constructs and weren't just CRUD apps built upon 3 frameworks, I'd almost agree with you. There are definitely roles that need that expertise, but I'd bet a yoke with a solid SWE fundamentals and comletetence in one language can ramp up for another stack relatively quickly. Nat least, no clowwr than any other engineering profession. Companies simply either oversell the work they need done or oversell how urgent the work is (compared to working the existing staff overtime).

epolanski 2y ago

I feel so lucky I haven't had to apply anywhere in my entire career through postings, the good thing of having a solid network is that you get to know who knows a consultant/freelancer before any position is created. I did post my availability few times on HN "who wants to be hired" but with poor results and lots of wasted time (as again, the person on the other end does not know me or has worked with me everything gets bureaucratic again). Also, all of the people I had hired for my clients came again from my network, there was never a public posting. There's also other benefits, in general, you don't get to do silly technical interviews, as you're bringing former coworkers you can vouch for. Not saying this can scale anywhere, but in smaller companies with good teams and professionals they always know someone from their previous jobs or their online communities (common in open source related githubs/discords/slacks) and I like it.

bearjaws 2y ago
This is really the best career advice. I was fortunately able to leave a terrible job 2 years ago and immediately had contract work, now I run my own business and get constant referrals from my network. I make more than ever, have incredible work-life balance, and for the most part love what I do. If you don't have a network, the moment you quit/lose a job you are dead to the world. Even now I have people approaching me for FTE roles, I haven't even worked with them for 2 years. Am I some god tier programmer? Not really, but I have a good track record and people always want to go to someone they already trusted.
- Caius-Cosades 2y ago
  Yeah if you're not a social butterfly in the modern world you're just effed. Or about as good as dead, unless you happen to be extremely lucky.
  - rwyinuse 2y ago
    In academic / white collar work for sure. But if you're something like a skilled craftsman whose services are in demand, you can probably do fine with less social networking.

kube-system 2y ago

Having interviewed candidates for full-stack positions, and actually asked them about the entire stack (instead of just the backend), I'm surprised the number isn't higher.

ARandomerDude 2y ago
I've been amazed by how many times I've had this conversation: Applicant: "I love ${LANGUAGE} so much! It's amazing! I'm super passionate about it!" Me: "Oh that's great! What are some things you like about ${LANGUAGE}, and one or two things you wish the language designers had done differently?" Silence. (Replace language with database, framework, etc. as needed).
- duxup 2y ago
  I always wonder how much that is influenced by the blog / social media world where a few (or even one) neat features in a product or language produces "I love this". So yeah they love it ... in so far as the social media expression goes.
  - supriyo-biswas 2y ago
    I feel that’s more of an artifact of American culture. I remember discussions where the stakeholder declined to use a technology, and said something like “we love X, but are concerned about Y.”
- kube-system 2y ago
  Too often I find "full-stack" developers who only know how frameworks operate, but have no idea about how the computer actually works. "How do you do [x] in SQL?" > "I've always had the ORM handle that" "How do you do [x] in CSS" > "I use this CSS framework and it will do it for me" "How does a packet get between the front end and back end of your solution" > "I update the object state using [x] in the [y] framework"
  - wetpaws 2y ago

duxup 2y ago

I always wonder about the gathering resumes "just in case the perfect person applies" kind of idea. 1. Would anyone notice if the perfect candidate applied? 2. Does anyone even know what the perfect candidate's resume would look like / are those qualities on a resume / captured by a resume system? 3. Is the perfect candidate actually cold submitting resume to you? It feels like almost certainly these are all "no".

johnnyanmac 2y ago
1. With the current AI bots, likely not. And that basically shows how inefficient these systems currently are. 2. The hiring manager does. The bot certainly does not. The odds of someone able to please the latter while meeting the former is low odds, for a candidate that's already low odds to begin with. 3. Not impossible. And that's all the justification they need as long as they aren't penalized for what basically a ghost job.
drillsteps5 2y ago
From my experience this is one of the ways it might work. Recruiting (company's internal function, which is part of HR) is tasked with soliciting profiles to see what's available on the market. There's no real position but the recruiter(s) invent one according to what the business told them they would eventually need. There's no hiring manager behind it (as there's no position to be be filled). Recruiter either periodically meets with the business group that requested the research or prepares a report on the results (number of resumes that came in, salary requirements, etc) and presents to the business group that requested it. So there's a reason these resumes are being solicited, it's just the reason is not to hire somebody. Sometimes it is done to justify business decision (ie to move to a different technology, or to expand to a new geographical area). Sometimes the business group _might_ be willing to open a new req if "the right candidate" comes up, but it's not guaranteed. It also allows HR and recruiting to justify their presence (they are busy despite the fact that the company might not be hiring at all currently). So there's reasons why these positions are posted and virtually none to prevent the company from doing that.
Glyptodon 2y ago
I think the answers to these is usually no, but there's one (questionable) person in leadership who's like "what if somebody from Google applies?" (or whatever equivalent). Never seen it work. Encountered it a few times. It tends to be magical thinking embellished by narratives around 10x engineers.

dcdc123 2y ago

I think another very common scenario is just eliminating the headcount. Companies cut headcount at a small scale all the time and the first one to go is usually the unhired.

ben_w 2y ago

> we always leave a posting up even when we're not really looking just in case the perfect candidate happens to walk through the door I've seen one that remained up after the company itself was closed down… which I knew about by having been in it when it closed; even before that, it was so out of date the salary offered was about 60% of what they'd paid me when I joined.

Miserlou57 2y ago

I was a contractor at a FAANG for a few years, and they handed me a job. In the few weeks of transition between the two (some paperwork, etc.) a job posting and req ID was created and posted on their jobs site. I freaked out for a bit, but everything worked out so I can only presume (in California) that was a requirement. What amazed me was it said (maybe on LinkedIN?) how many poor souls actually took the time to apply to the position. It was in the hundreds. I can't help but feel bad knowing they never had a chance.

Scoundreller 2y ago
Happens in public/gov sector regularly. PT role turning into FT… it’s going to the PTer. Temporary budget allocation became permanent and determinate spot becoming indeterminate? Same.
- nullfield 2y ago
  In the public sector, tbh, the quality of candidates is so bad that everyone you get on the first round of applicants can be totally unqualified. So, you have to reopen the posting or start all over. And the second set of candidates is just as bad. So you close it and rewrite the description (not that fucking HR was competent at that in the first place), and go back to step one, which you are highly likely to repeat.
red-iron-pine 2y ago
linkedin has one-click applications for many large orgs; in all likelihood they saw something that said "FAANG" and "similar to you skills" and clicked it. a previous F500 company I worked for and was involved with hiring for was constantly posting jobs but only really took application seriously when they were referrals or through the company job site directly.
- creer 2y ago
  By now this seems to be a serious problem. It's too easy to apply for a job. Disincentive all around: it's too easy to be lazy and over-specify or mis-describe a job offer. Then it's too easy for randos to apply because it's just a few clicks at most. Then it's too easy to dismiss with a broad comb because of all the randos. etc, etc. At this point the "job posting to job application" pipeline is completely broken and anyone who cares should rather leverage their network. Both to hire and apply, or use deliberately more obscure pathways such as professional society meetings or company web sites only, or job fairs, etc.

devmor 2y ago

I once got a developer position through a professional group on Facebook. My soon-to-be manager had to have HR create a job posting on a public facing portal so I could apply through it, despite already essentially giving me the position. I wonder how many people applied for that job before it was taken down.

freedomben 2y ago

I think you're right. Speaking from current personal experience, it's not unusual to get 500 applications for a job, especially higher-level jobs like Principal engineer (where people are chasing the title and salary). I would guess 90% of them are clearly underqualified. Of the other 10%, nearly half will never respond to a follow-up email to schedule interviews. Of those that do, 3/4 of them will reject the offer for various reasons. Given I have a lot of other duties beyond hiring, spending the hours upon hours it takes to sort through that only to have it yield no fruit is ... demoralizing at best. It seems to me that if somebody can actually solve the problem of increasing signal-to-noise ratio, they could do very well.

creer 2y ago

> I think the rate of non-fill is higher. I suspect far higher. Largely because there is no serious disincentive. The "study" may have assertained 1 in 5 but that doesn't mean there isn't much more.