8 ms·

So instead of the ambiguous text 'Software Engineer' we now have 10 ambiguous texts ranging from 'Analysis' to 'Data Science'. I don't really see how that solve

by arno_v 12y ago

So instead of the ambiguous text 'Software Engineer' we now have 10 ambiguous texts ranging from 'Analysis' to 'Data Science'. I don't really see how that solves a problem, since these underlying concepts are also quite hard to define consistently.

GordyMD 12y ago
Thanks for your comments. Whilst we cannot remove ambiguity completely from our solution - we can minimise it. The ambiguity of text really comes into play in CVs and job descriptions. We attempt to minimise the ambiguity by asking software engineers/anyone involved in software development to describe their work in a uniform way and not relying up the traditional artefacts. So whilst the terms have ambiguity to them, companies and people are answering the same question and we are using those answers to match people so that they can begin a conversation.
- arno_v 12y ago
  Ok, if you are indeed asking the same questions that helps. I would add some information per item with some explanation or definition, so it is as clear as possible what is meant by the different terms.
  - GordyMD 12y ago
    It is available right now if you hover over the labels on the chart. It is definitely not immediately obvious though so we shall have to work on that - thanks!
- scrapcode 12y ago
  I've got a problem. I've been coding for 12 years, yet have zero professional experience. How does your service rank me?
  - GordyMD 12y ago
    We don't do any ranking per se we just present how you want to spend your time. So it does not factor it in. It is up to you to decide what level of seniority the type of position you would consider going for. It might be a bit misleading that we use Github for sign up right now, this is mainly just to ensure only developers are signing up - as the service only exists for them currently. We do not use Github for any number crunching.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  I find it interesting that your graph leaves out any mention of innovation or invention. It also ignores corporate cultures. Backend engineering for a web startup is very different to backend engineering for a Wall St HFT house. I wouldn't expect someone who worked in one to be expert in the other. Even within the web startup world, fullstack with MEAN is very different to fullstack with PHP/Apache/MySQL - not just technically, but culturally. So I think what you have is one of those toy models that management love so much. I'd like to see some hard big-sample-size evidence that it really does improve hiring outcomes in practice.
  - bendyBus 12y ago
    (1) Surely culture and technology stack are reasonably independent of the dimensions considered here (2) Wouldn't you agree that this asks an important question which is currently absent from the hiring conversation? (3) Even if the spider plot is an imperfect representation, isn't it a helpful starting point for a conversation between a potential employer and employee? (4) I'm not sure what your concern is about toy models and management. All models are toy models, the only thing which matters is whether they lead you to ask the right questions.
- jghn 12y ago
  I like the concept but personally when I look at a resume I never* look at job titles anyways - they're effectively meaningless when compared between companies. Instead I read what they self-describe themselves to be doing, which is basically what you're doing albeit in visual form. * Within a single company titles usually are meaningful, so title changes while staying at the same company I'll take note of - particularly promotions
  - exelius 12y ago
    Once you get to a certain size of company, you have the normal career path of (entry level functional job) > manager > director > vice president. Depending on the size of the company, there may be sub-levels such as junior/assistant > senior > executive/general. The levels usually mean the same thing across companies. If someone goes from a manager to a director at a big company, that usually means something. Depending on the company, some titles can have negative connotations - "executive director" at many companies means "director who will never get promoted to VP". Also, if they worked at a bank, "vice president" means nothing. Nearly everyone working at a bank is a vice president - government regulations restrict access to certain customer data and the ability to enact transactions on behalf of the bank to VP and above, so the solution is to just give everyone the title of VP.
    - jghn 12y ago
      I'm thinking more in the realm of things software developers (as that's what TFA is focused on) are often referred to as. For instance, an anecdote I like to give here is that I've worked at companies where "senior software engineer" meant "we didn't hire you fresh out of college and you're not a manager" (i.e. nearly everyone) and I've worked at places where SSE meant "you're nearly a manager in terms of seniority" I was going to make the VP at a bank point but you already did for me :)
      - exelius 12y ago
        Yeah, I will agree that below manager level titles are pretty meaningless in general.
genericuser 12y ago
Is it just me or isn't Data Science used in an even more vague manner than Software Engineer is used. I mean on a daily basis I encounter people that call themselves Data Scientists who would never be able to use the title Software Engineer or even programmer as they wouldn't be able to write a single line of code if asked.
- jghn 12y ago
  Exactly. I have a lot of acquaintances who self-describe as data scientists. They really run the range all the way from "they poke around with Excel" (ie not only could I do that in my sleep, but you couldn't pay me enough to do soemthing that dull) all the way to "novel algorithm design at the frontier of the field" (ie I could take classes, train, be mentored, etc and never be able to do what they do).
  - exelius 12y ago
    You're looking at this through a purely technical lens. The guy who "pokes around with Excel" probably operates in a business context. He interacts with people who have no clue about data science, and is able to use the data to tell a convincing story. This can be dangerous if he doesn't know what he's doing, but 90% of things people want to use "data science" for are pretty trivial technically and probably can be done in Excel. The guy designing a novel algorithm probably operates in a technical context. People like this tend to be very "in the weeds" and incapable of succinctly explaining their findings to people without the same context they have. This is a universal problem -- people who are extremely technically skilled often have trouble explaining their craft to, say, a marketing exec wanting to know how a certain characteristic is derived. In fact, the marketing exec will probably call in the Excel data scientist to translate. Does this mean the guy designing the novel algorithm is somehow lesser? Absolutely not! But when you choose a deeply technical career path, you run the risk of losing the external context. This is why many companies have managers in engineering who aren't super technical -- they're technical enough to understand the jist of the concept, but their core skill is communication. If they're doing their job well, the engineers are left alone to do their job without senior business people sticking their noses in everything. Coincidentally (or maybe not), I think the "soft skills" are sorely missing in this skills matrix. Every engineer will have to give a presentation or work with an external team at some point in their careers, and some are better at it than others. In my opinion, the guys with hardcore engineering skills are great, but someone with solid engineering skills who can communicate well is a rock star. You can replace a badass engineer, but you can't easily replace the cross-team relationships that a good communicator has built that can often short-circuit requirements problems before they get turned into code.

by arno_v 12y ago

GordyMD 12y ago

Thanks for your comments. Whilst we cannot remove ambiguity completely from our solution - we can minimise it. The ambiguity of text really comes into play in CVs and job descriptions. We attempt to minimise the ambiguity by asking software engineers/anyone involved in software development to describe their work in a uniform way and not relying up the traditional artefacts. So whilst the terms have ambiguity to them, companies and people are answering the same question and we are using those answers to match people so that they can begin a conversation.

arno_v 12y ago
Ok, if you are indeed asking the same questions that helps. I would add some information per item with some explanation or definition, so it is as clear as possible what is meant by the different terms.
- GordyMD 12y ago
  It is available right now if you hover over the labels on the chart. It is definitely not immediately obvious though so we shall have to work on that - thanks!
scrapcode 12y ago
I've got a problem. I've been coding for 12 years, yet have zero professional experience. How does your service rank me?
- GordyMD 12y ago
  We don't do any ranking per se we just present how you want to spend your time. So it does not factor it in. It is up to you to decide what level of seniority the type of position you would consider going for. It might be a bit misleading that we use Github for sign up right now, this is mainly just to ensure only developers are signing up - as the service only exists for them currently. We do not use Github for any number crunching.
TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
I find it interesting that your graph leaves out any mention of innovation or invention. It also ignores corporate cultures. Backend engineering for a web startup is very different to backend engineering for a Wall St HFT house. I wouldn't expect someone who worked in one to be expert in the other. Even within the web startup world, fullstack with MEAN is very different to fullstack with PHP/Apache/MySQL - not just technically, but culturally. So I think what you have is one of those toy models that management love so much. I'd like to see some hard big-sample-size evidence that it really does improve hiring outcomes in practice.
- bendyBus 12y ago
  (1) Surely culture and technology stack are reasonably independent of the dimensions considered here (2) Wouldn't you agree that this asks an important question which is currently absent from the hiring conversation? (3) Even if the spider plot is an imperfect representation, isn't it a helpful starting point for a conversation between a potential employer and employee? (4) I'm not sure what your concern is about toy models and management. All models are toy models, the only thing which matters is whether they lead you to ask the right questions.
jghn 12y ago
I like the concept but personally when I look at a resume I never* look at job titles anyways - they're effectively meaningless when compared between companies. Instead I read what they self-describe themselves to be doing, which is basically what you're doing albeit in visual form. * Within a single company titles usually are meaningful, so title changes while staying at the same company I'll take note of - particularly promotions
- exelius 12y ago
  Once you get to a certain size of company, you have the normal career path of (entry level functional job) > manager > director > vice president. Depending on the size of the company, there may be sub-levels such as junior/assistant > senior > executive/general. The levels usually mean the same thing across companies. If someone goes from a manager to a director at a big company, that usually means something. Depending on the company, some titles can have negative connotations - "executive director" at many companies means "director who will never get promoted to VP". Also, if they worked at a bank, "vice president" means nothing. Nearly everyone working at a bank is a vice president - government regulations restrict access to certain customer data and the ability to enact transactions on behalf of the bank to VP and above, so the solution is to just give everyone the title of VP.
  - jghn 12y ago
    I'm thinking more in the realm of things software developers (as that's what TFA is focused on) are often referred to as. For instance, an anecdote I like to give here is that I've worked at companies where "senior software engineer" meant "we didn't hire you fresh out of college and you're not a manager" (i.e. nearly everyone) and I've worked at places where SSE meant "you're nearly a manager in terms of seniority" I was going to make the VP at a bank point but you already did for me :)
    - exelius 12y ago
      Yeah, I will agree that below manager level titles are pretty meaningless in general.

genericuser 12y ago

Is it just me or isn't Data Science used in an even more vague manner than Software Engineer is used. I mean on a daily basis I encounter people that call themselves Data Scientists who would never be able to use the title Software Engineer or even programmer as they wouldn't be able to write a single line of code if asked.

jghn 12y ago
Exactly. I have a lot of acquaintances who self-describe as data scientists. They really run the range all the way from "they poke around with Excel" (ie not only could I do that in my sleep, but you couldn't pay me enough to do soemthing that dull) all the way to "novel algorithm design at the frontier of the field" (ie I could take classes, train, be mentored, etc and never be able to do what they do).
- exelius 12y ago
  You're looking at this through a purely technical lens. The guy who "pokes around with Excel" probably operates in a business context. He interacts with people who have no clue about data science, and is able to use the data to tell a convincing story. This can be dangerous if he doesn't know what he's doing, but 90% of things people want to use "data science" for are pretty trivial technically and probably can be done in Excel. The guy designing a novel algorithm probably operates in a technical context. People like this tend to be very "in the weeds" and incapable of succinctly explaining their findings to people without the same context they have. This is a universal problem -- people who are extremely technically skilled often have trouble explaining their craft to, say, a marketing exec wanting to know how a certain characteristic is derived. In fact, the marketing exec will probably call in the Excel data scientist to translate. Does this mean the guy designing the novel algorithm is somehow lesser? Absolutely not! But when you choose a deeply technical career path, you run the risk of losing the external context. This is why many companies have managers in engineering who aren't super technical -- they're technical enough to understand the jist of the concept, but their core skill is communication. If they're doing their job well, the engineers are left alone to do their job without senior business people sticking their noses in everything. Coincidentally (or maybe not), I think the "soft skills" are sorely missing in this skills matrix. Every engineer will have to give a presentation or work with an external team at some point in their careers, and some are better at it than others. In my opinion, the guys with hardcore engineering skills are great, but someone with solid engineering skills who can communicate well is a rock star. You can replace a badass engineer, but you can't easily replace the cross-team relationships that a good communicator has built that can often short-circuit requirements problems before they get turned into code.