3 ms·

Agreed. StackOverflow provides tremendous value to the tech community. However, the idea of charging participants in that community $100 per year for the privi

Agreed. StackOverflow provides tremendous value to the tech community. However, the idea of charging participants in that community $100 per year for the privilege of having their resumes searchable by employers seems like a bit of a slap in the face. Especially since the Careers site doesn't even seem to try to distinguish between employers and recruiters.

pchristensen 17y ago
Spolsky has said that every job that gets posted requires the company name, ditto for companies using Careers. Ergo, it's no use to recruiters because they can go around the posting straight to the company. He (correctly) believes that recruiters destroy value for job seekers and companies and keep markets from working. About the slap in the face, it's necessary to filter out bad developers who won't get value from posting their CV. The best price isn't always free.
- dschobel 17y ago
  How exactly does willingness to pay $100 correlate to developer ability? Edit: and it's funny that Spolsky would complain about recruiters when that's exactly when he's trying to become on a larger scale. A middleman by another name would smell so foul...
  - confuzatron 17y ago
    Recruiters (where I come from) take a big chunk of salary. Stackoverflow are charging $100 p/a. Not directly comparable, but depending on the salary, getting a job through SO will be thousands of dollars cheaper. So I wouldn't agree SO is trying to be a recruiter on a larger scale.
- coriander 17y ago
  ->"About the slap in the face, it's necessary to filter out bad developers who won't get value from posting their CV." The willingness to pay $100 to post your resume could just as easily correlate to lower ability since someone who can't find a job through any other avenue might be willing to pay for additional exposure to employers.
- jswinghammer 17y ago
  I'm not sure why recruiters prevent markets from working. In my experience they link up programmers and companies that aren't good about getting their name out there find one each other. It's sometimes a bit weird but under the right conditions it benefits both parties.
- tomjen2 17y ago
  If start ups shouldn't pay for the privileges of pitching, why should employees pay for the right to pitch to employers?

pchristensen 17y ago

Spolsky has said that every job that gets posted requires the company name, ditto for companies using Careers. Ergo, it's no use to recruiters because they can go around the posting straight to the company. He (correctly) believes that recruiters destroy value for job seekers and companies and keep markets from working. About the slap in the face, it's necessary to filter out bad developers who won't get value from posting their CV. The best price isn't always free.

dschobel 17y ago
How exactly does willingness to pay $100 correlate to developer ability? Edit: and it's funny that Spolsky would complain about recruiters when that's exactly when he's trying to become on a larger scale. A middleman by another name would smell so foul...
- confuzatron 17y ago
  Recruiters (where I come from) take a big chunk of salary. Stackoverflow are charging $100 p/a. Not directly comparable, but depending on the salary, getting a job through SO will be thousands of dollars cheaper. So I wouldn't agree SO is trying to be a recruiter on a larger scale.
coriander 17y ago
->"About the slap in the face, it's necessary to filter out bad developers who won't get value from posting their CV." The willingness to pay $100 to post your resume could just as easily correlate to lower ability since someone who can't find a job through any other avenue might be willing to pay for additional exposure to employers.
jswinghammer 17y ago
I'm not sure why recruiters prevent markets from working. In my experience they link up programmers and companies that aren't good about getting their name out there find one each other. It's sometimes a bit weird but under the right conditions it benefits both parties.
tomjen2 17y ago
If start ups shouldn't pay for the privileges of pitching, why should employees pay for the right to pitch to employers?