4 ms·
Bad idea. Competent candidates might also disqualify you as employer right there. Plus you'll be part of normalizing hazardous behavior.
by baobun 1y ago
Bad idea.
Competent candidates might also disqualify you as employer right there. Plus you'll be part of normalizing hazardous behavior.
- dylan604 1y agostrong disagree. it's very similar to anti-phishing training/tests. also, being tagged as a company that cares that its potential new hires are not lazy programmers that just copy&paste because someone told them too would more than likely be taken as a positive not a negative.
- baobun 1y agoIt's also a disingenious shit test which doesn't reflect well on team culture. Pass. > it's very similar to anti-phishing training/tests With the crucial difference that the candidate is someone external who never consented to or was informed of this activity.
- dylan604 1y agoit's much better than asking why a soap bubble is round
- horseradish7k 1y agoanti phishing tests are stupid in a similar manner, clicking a link should not fail you
- dylan604 1y agowhy would you click the link? you absolutely should fail.
- makeitdouble 1y agoBut where does it stop ? Will there be trap clauses in the NDA and contract to see if they carefully read every line ? Will they be left with no onboarding on day one to see how far they can go by themselves ? etc. You're starting the relationship on the base of distrust, and they don't know you, they have no idea how far you're willing to go, and assuming the worst would be the safest option.
- dylan604 1y agoWe can't have green M&Ms for a reason.
- makeitdouble 1y agoThat was an innocent canary clause (they were not asking to put the POS on fire) The equivalent here would be to ask the candidate to have some folded paper showing his name on camera for the interview, not threatening them with malware.