3 ms·

This is why I hate those services that have an automated pre-screen process. The ones where you visit a specific URL and after reading the questions you record

by Zelphyr 12y ago

This is why I hate those services that have an automated pre-screen process. The ones where you visit a specific URL and after reading the questions you record a 30 second video with your answer. The massive hole there is that I don't get to interview anyone the company to see if I feel like its a good fit. I'm sure its saves them time but it wastes mine.

rlu 12y ago
Well to be fair, they likely get many more applicants than you have interviews scheduled. And it's just a pre-screen, right? It's not like you have to make your decision right there and then if you do well in it.
- Zelphyr 12y ago
  I don't disagree but it seems impersonal at best, rude at worst.
  - fphhotchips 12y ago
    I agree with you. If you can't be bothered asking me the questions in person, I can't be bothered answering them. That's the social contract. I've already written a cover letter that responds to the points in the ad; if they can't prescreen sufficiently using that then they need to work on their ad.
  - r00fus 12y ago
    Even worse (for the hiring team) - it's probably not that effective a filter. You might as well use the "I only hire lucky people" filter [1]. Interviewing needs to be interactive because any decent job requires interaction. [1] http://cream.hr/blog/why-the-hiring-system-is-failing/ http://cream.hr/blog/why-the-hiring-system-is-failing/
chavesn 12y ago
I haven't even heard of such a thing. I've done a couple written Q&As, but those I think are fair, since I have time to prepare a thoughtful response and don't have to worry about communicating body language to a faceless camera at the same time. To be honest, it sounds like a net lose -- it's a definite negative for a candidate, with perhaps not much benefit for the company (high noise, high false negatives due to the awkward environment). My gut feeling is that I would immediately reject any company that asked me to do that, if I had the choice.

by Zelphyr 12y ago

rlu 12y ago

Well to be fair, they likely get many more applicants than you have interviews scheduled. And it's just a pre-screen, right? It's not like you have to make your decision right there and then if you do well in it.

Zelphyr 12y ago
I don't disagree but it seems impersonal at best, rude at worst.
- fphhotchips 12y ago
  I agree with you. If you can't be bothered asking me the questions in person, I can't be bothered answering them. That's the social contract. I've already written a cover letter that responds to the points in the ad; if they can't prescreen sufficiently using that then they need to work on their ad.
- r00fus 12y ago
  Even worse (for the hiring team) - it's probably not that effective a filter. You might as well use the "I only hire lucky people" filter [1]. Interviewing needs to be interactive because any decent job requires interaction. [1] http://cream.hr/blog/why-the-hiring-system-is-failing/ http://cream.hr/blog/why-the-hiring-system-is-failing/

chavesn 12y ago

I haven't even heard of such a thing. I've done a couple written Q&As, but those I think are fair, since I have time to prepare a thoughtful response and don't have to worry about communicating body language to a faceless camera at the same time. To be honest, it sounds like a net lose -- it's a definite negative for a candidate, with perhaps not much benefit for the company (high noise, high false negatives due to the awkward environment). My gut feeling is that I would immediately reject any company that asked me to do that, if I had the choice.