2 ms·
"for no more work than it took to read a blog." But it shows you are willing to read blogs to further your knowledge. Presumably even voluntarily. Would you re
by facepalm 12y ago
"for no more work than it took to read a blog."
But it shows you are willing to read blogs to further your knowledge. Presumably even voluntarily. Would you really say that is just a weak signal, especially in a profession that changes as quickly as IT?
- FLUX-YOU 12y agoI think it's a weak signal. It should be a nice-to-have, not a deal-breaker. The article's signaling is even weaker in my opinion, and those are deal-breakers of the most superficial kind. It's too easy to gain significant credibility for so little actual work. >Well I initially said "if somebody doesn't know Joel or Graham, I would probably count it as a minus", not a deal breaker. Oh, sorry. I still think it can swing opinions too much being what it is.
- facepalm 12y agoWell I initially said "if somebody doesn't know Joel or Graham, I would probably count it as a minus", not a deal breaker. But why should it not matter to my estimate whether somebody knows that or not. Would you believe somebody who claims they are passionate about physics but have never heard about Einstein (to make an obvious example)? How would you go about probing a candidates enthusiasm and determination?