6 ms·

> I'm not even looking very hard but have had 4 interviews in the last month. How many offers did you receive? Companies have also adopted your strategy: inter

> I'm not even looking very hard but have had 4 interviews in the last month. How many offers did you receive? Companies have also adopted your strategy: interviewing candidates "to see what's out there" - there's a job I interviewed for that's still open after 10 months.

tylervigen 8mo ago
What a time to be alive: Companies post roles that don't exist to interview candidates who don't plan to switch.
- rimmontrieu 8mo ago
  and waste everyone time
Aurornis 8mo ago
> Companies have also adopted your strategy: interviewing candidates "to see what's out there" - there's a job I've interviewed for that's still open after 10 months When I was doing a lot of hiring we wouldn't take the job posting down until we were done hiring people with that title. It made a couple people furious because they assumed we were going to take the job posting down when we hired someone and then re-post a new listing for the next person. One guy was even stalking LinkedIn to try to identify who was hired, without realizing that many engineers don't update their LinkedIn. Got some angry e-mails. There are some scary applicants out there. Some times a specific job opening needs to stay open for a long time to hire the right person, though. I can recall some specific job listings we had open for years because none of the people we interviewed really had the specific experience we needed (though many falsely claimed it in their applications, right until we began asking questions)
- fullofideas 8mo ago
  Honest question. Were these super specialized roles with such specific skill requirements that it took such a long time to find the right person? Looking back, do you think the team would have been better off hiring someone who came close enough, and supporting them to learn on the job?
  - Aurornis 8mo ago
    > Looking back, do you think the team would have been better off hiring someone who came close enough, and supporting them to learn on the job? More specialized. If we wanted to train someone, we'd start with an internal candidate who was familiar with the other parts of the job and then train them on this one thing. Hiring an outsider who doesn't know the subject matter and then teaching them is less efficient and more risky. It was better to have someone in the team learn the new subject as an incremental step and then backfill the simpler work they were doing.
  - cozzyd 8mo ago
    Some academic departments do this... put a job ad every year in case there's a superstar.
- coliveira 8mo ago
  > some specific job listings we had open for years If you need to wait YEARS to hire someone with some specific experience, I can guarantee that you really didn't need that person. You're doing this just to check some specific artificial goal that has little to do with the business.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Aurornis 8mo ago
    > If you need to wait YEARS to hire someone with some specific experience, I can guarantee that you really didn't need that person. I've worked in specialized fields where it takes YEARS for the right candidate to even start looking for jobs. You need to have the job listings up and ready. This was extremely true when we were working on things that could not be done remote (literal physical devices that had to be worked on with special equipment in office). Engineers aren't interchangeable cogs. > I can guarantee that you really didn't need that person. So what? There are many roles where we don't "need" someone, but if the right person is out there looking for a job we want to be ready to hire them.
    - bluefirebrand 8mo ago
      > I've worked in specialized fields where it takes YEARS for the right candidate to even start looking for jobs. You need to have the job listings up and ready If this is true then those shouldn't even be public job postings. That sort of critical position is for headhunters
      - Aurornis 8mo ago
        > If this is true then those shouldn't even be public job postings. Why? Not everyone is on LinkedIn or has an updated profile. Some of the best candidates I've hired were people who were in other states who were planning to move, but waiting for the right job opportunity to come up. We also used recruiters. Why does it make people so angry that we posted job listings for real jobs that we were really hiring for?
- overfeed 8mo ago
  > When I was doing a lot of hiring we wouldn't take the job posting down until we were done hiring people with that title It's a small engineering org, allegedly head-hunting one principal engineer for the whole org, so it's a single opening. 10 months later they are still hunting for their special snowflake. > I can recall some specific job listings we had open for years because none of the people we interviewed really had the specific experience we needed This is exactly what I mean. If you can go for years without filling a role, it's non-essential , and are in effect, "seeing what's out there". More and more companies are getting very picky on mundane roles, such as insisting on past experience in specific industries: "Oh, your extensive experience in low-latency comms is in telecoms? We prefer someone who's worked in TV broadcast, using these niche standards specifically, even though your knowledge is directly transferable. We don't want to waste 5 days on training"
  - smelendez 8mo ago
    You expect more nonessential roles and slower hiring in a slower growing economy, especially if companies only hire for full-time roles. For example, your company might need a full-time network admin once its network grows to a certain size and complexity. You won’t hit that level for three years but you’d hire the perfect person now if you found them even though they might be spending a lot of idle time scrolling Hacker News for the first year or two. At 5x the growth rate, you’d need that person within less than a year, and you might be less picky about whether they are coming from a TV or telecom shop.
- volkl48 8mo ago
  I assume that this means you're sending out rejections that include a mention of "we've hired someone else for this role". If your hiring model is hiring multiple people through one posting, then you will probably get a lot fewer angry ex-candidates being weird (because they think you've lied to them since the posting is still up) by just sending out rejections that don't say that and just get the "we're no longer interested in you for this role" message across. Nicer/more corporate language for both, of course.
  - Aurornis 8mo ago
    > I assume that this means you're sending out rejections that include a mention of "we've hired someone else for this role". No, this isn't possible unless you delay rejections letters until you hire someone. We send letters as soon as the decision is made not to continue with that candidate. Honestly it would be cruel to string them along any longer.
  - robryan 8mo ago
    From applying places recently I'd much rather get these fast. One company sent me them, the rest either reached out or I never heard from them.
wnevets 8mo ago
I have to agree, getting tech interviews isn't a great gauge of the job market.
robryan 8mo ago
As a candidate I don't mind doing a few highly speculative interviews. After not interviewing for a while it is good practice.
ge96 8mo ago
I recently did an interview and a complaint I hear from the interviewer and our own company, people (your competition) reading from AI output.
mjr00 8mo ago
> How many offers did you receive? Companies have also adopted your strategy: interviewing candidates "to see what's out there" - there's a job I interviewed for that's still open after 10 months. On the hiring side, at least in tech: interviewing really sucks. It's a big time investment from multiple people (HR, technical interviewers, managers, etc). I'm not saying it's impossible that companies are interviewing for fun, but it seems really unlikely to me anyone would want to do interviews without seriously intending to hire someone.
- overfeed 8mo ago
  > On the hiring side, at least in tech: interviewing really sucks. I know it sucks, I've sat on the other side if the interviewing desk many times, and the charade wastes everyone's time - the candidates most of all because no one values that. > I'm not saying it's impossible that companies are interviewing for fun, but it seems really unlikely to me anyone would want to do interviews without seriously intending to hire someone. It sounds like you've never had to deal with the BS that is headcount politics, which happens more at larger organizations due to more onerous processes. Upper management (director, VP) can play all sorts of games to protect a headcount buffer[1], and everyone down the chain has to waste their time pretending to be hiring just because the division heads want to "maximize strategic flexibility" or however they phrase it. 1. Which is reasonable, IMO. Large companies are not nimble when reacting to hiring needs. The core challenge are the conflicting goals thrust on senior leadership reporting to the C-Suite: avoiding labor shocks, and maximizing profitably -- the former requires redundancy, but the latter, leanness.
- koliber 8mo ago
  It sucks from both sides. I am on the interviewing and screening side and understand what you're saying. I also empathize with the people I routinely reject who don't understand why they were rejected. It's hard to see why you might not be a right fit for a role. > it seems really unlikely to me anyone would want to do interviews without seriously intending to hire someone. I keep seeing this accusation thrown around and like you, I have a hard time seeing this. On the flip side, looking at it from the eyes of many disenchanted candidates, I can see how a theory like this is appealing and self-reinforcing.
koliber 8mo ago
Be careful to make judgement calls like this. I've been running the same job ad for 2 years now, as a recruiter for a big Canadian bank. I've been laughed at for having ridiculously unrealistic standards. I've been accused of running ghost ads. I'm in the process of hiring the 13th person using this same job ad for new and existing teams that need a very particular type of engineer.
giwook 8mo ago
I doubt that very many (if any) companies do this. I don't see how this would benefit them. Why do you care what's out there if you may not be hiring for months/years down the line when the landscape may have changed dramatically? Why waste the time of the people who are often your most expensive employees (your engineers)? You're just burning cash at this point.

tylervigen 8mo ago

What a time to be alive: Companies post roles that don't exist to interview candidates who don't plan to switch.

rimmontrieu 8mo ago
and waste everyone time

Aurornis 8mo ago

> Companies have also adopted your strategy: interviewing candidates "to see what's out there" - there's a job I've interviewed for that's still open after 10 months When I was doing a lot of hiring we wouldn't take the job posting down until we were done hiring people with that title. It made a couple people furious because they assumed we were going to take the job posting down when we hired someone and then re-post a new listing for the next person. One guy was even stalking LinkedIn to try to identify who was hired, without realizing that many engineers don't update their LinkedIn. Got some angry e-mails. There are some scary applicants out there. Some times a specific job opening needs to stay open for a long time to hire the right person, though. I can recall some specific job listings we had open for years because none of the people we interviewed really had the specific experience we needed (though many falsely claimed it in their applications, right until we began asking questions)

fullofideas 8mo ago
Honest question. Were these super specialized roles with such specific skill requirements that it took such a long time to find the right person? Looking back, do you think the team would have been better off hiring someone who came close enough, and supporting them to learn on the job?
- Aurornis 8mo ago
  > Looking back, do you think the team would have been better off hiring someone who came close enough, and supporting them to learn on the job? More specialized. If we wanted to train someone, we'd start with an internal candidate who was familiar with the other parts of the job and then train them on this one thing. Hiring an outsider who doesn't know the subject matter and then teaching them is less efficient and more risky. It was better to have someone in the team learn the new subject as an incremental step and then backfill the simpler work they were doing.
- cozzyd 8mo ago
  Some academic departments do this... put a job ad every year in case there's a superstar.
coliveira 8mo ago
> some specific job listings we had open for years If you need to wait YEARS to hire someone with some specific experience, I can guarantee that you really didn't need that person. You're doing this just to check some specific artificial goal that has little to do with the business.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- Aurornis 8mo ago
  > If you need to wait YEARS to hire someone with some specific experience, I can guarantee that you really didn't need that person. I've worked in specialized fields where it takes YEARS for the right candidate to even start looking for jobs. You need to have the job listings up and ready. This was extremely true when we were working on things that could not be done remote (literal physical devices that had to be worked on with special equipment in office). Engineers aren't interchangeable cogs. > I can guarantee that you really didn't need that person. So what? There are many roles where we don't "need" someone, but if the right person is out there looking for a job we want to be ready to hire them.
  - bluefirebrand 8mo ago
    > I've worked in specialized fields where it takes YEARS for the right candidate to even start looking for jobs. You need to have the job listings up and ready If this is true then those shouldn't even be public job postings. That sort of critical position is for headhunters
    - Aurornis 8mo ago
      > If this is true then those shouldn't even be public job postings. Why? Not everyone is on LinkedIn or has an updated profile. Some of the best candidates I've hired were people who were in other states who were planning to move, but waiting for the right job opportunity to come up. We also used recruiters. Why does it make people so angry that we posted job listings for real jobs that we were really hiring for?
overfeed 8mo ago
> When I was doing a lot of hiring we wouldn't take the job posting down until we were done hiring people with that title It's a small engineering org, allegedly head-hunting one principal engineer for the whole org, so it's a single opening. 10 months later they are still hunting for their special snowflake. > I can recall some specific job listings we had open for years because none of the people we interviewed really had the specific experience we needed This is exactly what I mean. If you can go for years without filling a role, it's non-essential , and are in effect, "seeing what's out there". More and more companies are getting very picky on mundane roles, such as insisting on past experience in specific industries: "Oh, your extensive experience in low-latency comms is in telecoms? We prefer someone who's worked in TV broadcast, using these niche standards specifically, even though your knowledge is directly transferable. We don't want to waste 5 days on training"
- smelendez 8mo ago
  You expect more nonessential roles and slower hiring in a slower growing economy, especially if companies only hire for full-time roles. For example, your company might need a full-time network admin once its network grows to a certain size and complexity. You won’t hit that level for three years but you’d hire the perfect person now if you found them even though they might be spending a lot of idle time scrolling Hacker News for the first year or two. At 5x the growth rate, you’d need that person within less than a year, and you might be less picky about whether they are coming from a TV or telecom shop.
volkl48 8mo ago
I assume that this means you're sending out rejections that include a mention of "we've hired someone else for this role". If your hiring model is hiring multiple people through one posting, then you will probably get a lot fewer angry ex-candidates being weird (because they think you've lied to them since the posting is still up) by just sending out rejections that don't say that and just get the "we're no longer interested in you for this role" message across. Nicer/more corporate language for both, of course.
- Aurornis 8mo ago
  > I assume that this means you're sending out rejections that include a mention of "we've hired someone else for this role". No, this isn't possible unless you delay rejections letters until you hire someone. We send letters as soon as the decision is made not to continue with that candidate. Honestly it would be cruel to string them along any longer.
- robryan 8mo ago
  From applying places recently I'd much rather get these fast. One company sent me them, the rest either reached out or I never heard from them.

wnevets 8mo ago

I have to agree, getting tech interviews isn't a great gauge of the job market.

robryan 8mo ago

As a candidate I don't mind doing a few highly speculative interviews. After not interviewing for a while it is good practice.

ge96 8mo ago

I recently did an interview and a complaint I hear from the interviewer and our own company, people (your competition) reading from AI output.

mjr00 8mo ago

> How many offers did you receive? Companies have also adopted your strategy: interviewing candidates "to see what's out there" - there's a job I interviewed for that's still open after 10 months. On the hiring side, at least in tech: interviewing really sucks. It's a big time investment from multiple people (HR, technical interviewers, managers, etc). I'm not saying it's impossible that companies are interviewing for fun, but it seems really unlikely to me anyone would want to do interviews without seriously intending to hire someone.

overfeed 8mo ago
> On the hiring side, at least in tech: interviewing really sucks. I know it sucks, I've sat on the other side if the interviewing desk many times, and the charade wastes everyone's time - the candidates most of all because no one values that. > I'm not saying it's impossible that companies are interviewing for fun, but it seems really unlikely to me anyone would want to do interviews without seriously intending to hire someone. It sounds like you've never had to deal with the BS that is headcount politics, which happens more at larger organizations due to more onerous processes. Upper management (director, VP) can play all sorts of games to protect a headcount buffer[1], and everyone down the chain has to waste their time pretending to be hiring just because the division heads want to "maximize strategic flexibility" or however they phrase it. 1. Which is reasonable, IMO. Large companies are not nimble when reacting to hiring needs. The core challenge are the conflicting goals thrust on senior leadership reporting to the C-Suite: avoiding labor shocks, and maximizing profitably -- the former requires redundancy, but the latter, leanness.
koliber 8mo ago
It sucks from both sides. I am on the interviewing and screening side and understand what you're saying. I also empathize with the people I routinely reject who don't understand why they were rejected. It's hard to see why you might not be a right fit for a role. > it seems really unlikely to me anyone would want to do interviews without seriously intending to hire someone. I keep seeing this accusation thrown around and like you, I have a hard time seeing this. On the flip side, looking at it from the eyes of many disenchanted candidates, I can see how a theory like this is appealing and self-reinforcing.

koliber 8mo ago

Be careful to make judgement calls like this. I've been running the same job ad for 2 years now, as a recruiter for a big Canadian bank. I've been laughed at for having ridiculously unrealistic standards. I've been accused of running ghost ads. I'm in the process of hiring the 13th person using this same job ad for new and existing teams that need a very particular type of engineer.

giwook 8mo ago

I doubt that very many (if any) companies do this. I don't see how this would benefit them. Why do you care what's out there if you may not be hiring for months/years down the line when the landscape may have changed dramatically? Why waste the time of the people who are often your most expensive employees (your engineers)? You're just burning cash at this point.