|
csammis posted:I think his problem might have been that he didn't put working at Google on a high enough pedestal Isn't Google one of those things that kind of happens to you while you are off doing actual, productive work? I've had Google recruiters ping me a few times here and there out of the blue over the past few years, but I was already doing interesting work and wasn't in a position to drop everything and move the family across the country for a new job. I can only imagine what those poor recruiters thought when they did a web search for this guy and found his blog. Sadly, there was probably just a lot of sighing before they tossed his resume into the circular file. Bonus points to this guy if he went for broke and actually listed that blog on his resume.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
If he spends the *next* nine months contributing to an open source project that Google loves he'll probably get a phone call. (Happened to an old coworker who did work with eclipse, git, and eclipse+git.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
hendersa posted:Isn't Google one of those things that kind of happens to you while you are off doing actual, productive work? I've had Google recruiters ping me a few times here and there out of the blue over the past few years, but I was already doing interesting work and wasn't in a position to drop everything and move the family across the country for a new job. I got contacted by a Google recruiter as in intern for a large competitor company. I was actually a bit spooked since I have basically zero online presence so I'm not sure how they even got my name or email address.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Redmark posted:I got contacted by a Google recruiter as in intern for a large competitor company. I was actually a bit spooked since I have basically zero online presence so I'm not sure how they even got my name or email address. Google knows everything 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Doghouse posted:Google knows everything I don't know if it's still in business but there was some search engine that specialized in finding everything you ever did online, I tried it once and it dragged up usenet posts I made in 1996  Anyone remember what I'm talking about? Thought the name started with a p.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
A couple of years ago I spent a lot of time googling Python stuff. One time Google injected an interstitial into the search result that redirected me to a programming "game" at google.com/foobar. It turned to be a set of HackerRank-style challenges that presumably would have culminated in some recruiter contacting me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Anybody ever get the Uber engineering challenge? gently caress off I don't want to find bugs in your shitass quicksort implementation in 60 seconds while I careen around San Francisco in the back of this deathtrap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Dogcow posted:I don't know if it's still in business but there was some search engine that specialized in finding everything you ever did online, I tried it once and it dragged up usenet posts I made in 1996 Isn't it called Google?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
minato posted:A couple of years ago I spent a lot of time googling Python stuff. One time Google injected an interstitial into the search result that redirected me to a programming "game" at google.com/foobar. It turned to be a set of HackerRank-style challenges that presumably would have culminated in some recruiter contacting me. The "googley as heck" guy found it too! quote:I'm skipping this, since I already have a referral, and need to study! How do you get so fixated on getting a job somewhere and then not leap like an electrocuted frog at every possible opportunity? This guy's entire strategy baffles me. I understand that different people have different learning styles, though I can't help but think that if I were a Google recruiter and I found this my reaction would be "This person won't undertake challenges that he didn't construct himself."
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
csammis posted:The "googley as heck" guy found it too! My read was more "This guy is crazy and made a whole website to his stalking target, except the object of his affection was a multinational corporation instead of a random celebrity."
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
My favorite part is how he dedicated 9 months to this one company and is immediately giving up after one try. Immediately folding at the first sign of adversity is a good way to be successful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
I did sort of the same thing when Google contacted me back in 2007, minus the creepy public travelogue. They never followed up and stopped answering my emails for no reason, but the hardcore practice and studying I did for that maybe-interview landed me a different job that month.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
My favorite part was the part where he admitted that his "studying" mainly consisted of watching youtube videos and updating his github repo of study topics. He admits in one place he "wishes he had started coding exercises earlier".
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Oh god this gets so much worse when you see how old this guy is. Was expecting some 21-year-old with a stupid-rear end grin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
No, he's a seasoned web veteran with two profitable businesses who still goes to job fairs. I don't understand it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
lifg posted:No, he's a seasoned web veteran with two profitable businesses who still goes to job fairs. Programmers are just weird. I haven't met a single programmer that could be considered even remotely normal yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
lifg posted:No, he's a seasoned web veteran with two profitable businesses who still goes to job fairs. Many programmers have side businesses that generate income but still prefer full time employment at a stable company for the benefits and large salary. Especially when you have a family.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
lifg posted:No, he's a seasoned web veteran with two profitable businesses who still goes to job fairs. I've noticed a growing trend in SV and its satellite tech cities of software devs who feel the need to build a "personal brand" for some reason. The results are almost always mystifying, infuriating, and irritating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:I've noticed a growing trend in SV and its satellite tech cities of software devs who feel the need to build a "personal brand" for some reason. The results are almost always mystifying, infuriating, and irritating. But, if you're ranting on twitter or have a blog full of crazy-person ramblings, then... not so much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Programmers are just weird. I haven't met a single programmer that could be considered even remotely normal yet. I know plenty, keep looking
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
I didn't know job fairs were a thing outside of college, or companies seeking low-level workers. Are they actually good for experienced professionals on the job hunt?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
No, conferences and such fill the same role for non-entry-level positions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
hendersa posted:Well, everyone should be establishing a brand for themselves, no matter where you are located. This isn't a bad thing. Problems arise when this brand-building isn't done properly so it backfires and makes you look like a crazy person. If the buzzword "brand" puts people off, just think of it as leaving evidence around that you are a knowledgeable and competent professional that enjoys their work. If you've got some interesting open source code or tutorials floating around, have written some magazine articles or a book, have demonstrated a paper or some work at a professional conference, etc., you're probably doing it right. People doing work related to yours are seeing your name pop up when they do their research, and over time you begin to be considered as somewhat of an expert. If you are grinding away at a large company and would like to be a consultant one day, this "brand building" is exactly what you should be doing along the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:in every other industry this is called "credential creep"
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
hendersa posted:That is something a bit different. "Credential creep" is the inflation of the baseline requirements for a job. Saying that you require a candidate with a masters degree to do a job where a bachelors would do, for example, just because there are a glut of people with masters degrees interested in the job position. You are raising the bar because you can (and hopefully end up with higher quality employees at a lower price). "Branding" is the establishment of a particular professional reputation and image (of which your credentials form a portion). Branding is more important for entrepreneurs and others who have a professional identity that stands independent of, but may be enhanced by, his/her day job with a particular company. If you want to be a competitive candidate for a job position at a company, your credentials should be more impressive than that of the other applicants. But, if you are self- employed and want potential work to come to you to request your assistance with an issue (consulting), then your branding is what would catch their attention and bring them to contact you for advice, rather than them seeking out someone else. Don't get me wrong, for an individual I don't think this is bad advice at all, but I think it's a pervasive sickness throughout the industry that companies are obsessed with the prestige hires who have the most free time and the fewest outside commitments. It's a good idea to have a couple of people with really high visibility within the community at large if you can get them -- the only reason I paid attention to a recruiter from Blink Health was because Kellan from Etsy joined on as their SVP of Engineering. But taken to extremes -- and applying it to trench engineering talent is, in my opinion, extreme enough -- it's another way of justifying hiring only the young and the unencumbered while taking zero responsibility for the systemic effects on the remainder of the industry. Vulture Culture fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jan 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:If "everyone" should be establishing a brand for themselves, how does that not inflate the baseline? I understand your point, and I don't disagree. If everyone does XYZ, then companies will come to expect XYZ from all potential candidates, even when that isn't an explicitly-stated requirement for the job. Baseline expectations inflate. However, there are many different facets of the software development industry and geographic software markets where branding among engineers is hardly done. Government R&D in general, firmware and embedded systems outside of the hot geographic market areas (programming toaster firmware in Boise, Idaho or something), legacy software porting and maintenance, etc.. These organizations aren't actively seeking out prestige hires, and having the branding would certainly make you stand out. These positions also aren't web front/back-end development, cloud-based services, or other sexy jobs that are currently sought out by engineers seeking to work for the very best. You aren't competing with a bunch of H1Bs or younger developers whose job is their life. You're looking more at the 9-5 developers with a family and a house and life outside of work. They want a paycheck, but do not wish to establish any personal branding, and suggesting that they brand themselves will result in a response of "no thanks, that sounds like more effort than it is worth." Thus, it isn't always the case that "everyone" has the desire to do some branding. I have no doubt that many of the goons in this thread see a lot of shameless self-promotion among candidates in your area of the industry or geographic market. And, I do agree with what you say. But, there is a lot of industry out there that isn't a start-up culture or VC-backed pressure cooker based in San Francisco, Santa Clara, or New York City. If a particular job market is saturated with candidates that constantly polish their reputation, then the candidate not doing that is out of luck. There are a lot of markets where that doesn't happen, though. So, I should modify my original statement to say that everyone should establish a personal brand if he/she wants to maximize the opportunity for long-term success and professional growth. In high-pressure markets, it is expected. In other markets, it will certainly make you stand out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
There's an alternative argument that those putting a lot of effort into their personal brand rather than learning skills or becoming better engineers for the sake of it might be papering over inadequacy, or at least poorly directing their time. You seem to be making an argument that in some markets, this personal branding is necessary to be competitive; at the very least, that's not at all my experience in the Bay Area. It is absolutely not difficult for a competent engineer here to find a job without any effort at all put explicitly into "branding"; it is probably more difficult to avoid being the target of recruitment efforts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Another big problem of "we only want visible, popular rock star coders that have established a strong brand over several years" is that, if everybody has that policy, then new rock star devs never come into existence. Like I get that everybody wants top talent and will snag it if they can but not every code job requires you to be a wizard with 20 years of experience. Not everybody can be Vint Cerf but quite frankly not everybody needs to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Another big problem of "we only want visible, popular rock star coders that have established a strong brand over several years" is that, if everybody has that policy, then new rock star devs never come into existence. This is just another version of the "everyone wants employees with at least 5 years of experience" problem, though -- the majority of employers are not willing to hire untrained/inexperienced devs, because they don't want to spend all the time and money needed to train them only for them to leave a few years later. Which wouldn't have been a problem if the employers hadn't trained devs to not show loyalty because none will be shown to them, but that's a separate thing...
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:This is just another version of the "everyone wants employees with at least 5 years of experience" problem, though -- the majority of employers are not willing to hire untrained/inexperienced devs, because they don't want to spend all the time and money needed to train them only for them to leave a few years later. Which wouldn't have been a problem if the employers hadn't trained devs to not show loyalty because none will be shown to them, but that's a separate thing... And that is a problem with American employment overall rather than just with software. Everybody I've ever worked for has talked about how important loyalty is and how it's a huge deal that people should be loyal to who they work for while offering nothing but a paycheck in return.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Nobody I've worked for has said that, and guess what: the world doesn't owe you a living. The U.S. job market seems better than all the other ones to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:And that is a problem with American employment overall rather than just with software. Everybody I've ever worked for has talked about how important loyalty is and how it's a huge deal that people should be loyal to who they work for while offering nothing but a paycheck in return. This is something I've never heard except from higher ups who would benefit from this silly attitude. Even at the company where it was most team-centric, it was pretty well understood that you'd be silly not to at least keep your options open even if you're not actively looking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:And that is a problem with American employment overall rather than just with software. Everybody I've ever worked for has talked about how important loyalty is and how it's a huge deal that people should be loyal to who they work for while offering nothing but a paycheck in return.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
I recently had an honest conversation about this topic with my recruiter. She got me a six month contract-to-hire job. I accepted it, and thanked her, but then said, "in four to five months I'll be looking at job postings again." I do love what I'm doing right now, but if my company wanted me to not look around they would've hired me straight out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:This is something I've never heard except from higher ups who would benefit from this silly attitude. Even at the company where it was most team-centric, it was pretty well understood that you'd be silly not to at least keep your options open even if you're not actively looking. That's just it; it always comes from management. Rank and file employees know what's what and get it if you leave for greener pastures. Then again I've also gotten the "well we'd love to pay more but because we keep having to pay to train people because nobody sticks around we can't so stick around and we'll pay you more, promise!" from multiple places. When really the reason nobody sticks around is because the pay is utter poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Man, working at Facebook is so much different than working anywhere else I've been. Compensation is fair – actually quite good if you account for everything. Add to that the culture of openness internally, and you get things like discussing compensation, with people visibly volunteering a lot of info for conversations, without repercussions. I'd actually consider myself loyal to Facebook. Employees are *actually* considered important and that shows itself multiple times per week. Also - Perf reviews are more or less fair. Having 1:1s regularly is a religion on many/most teams. Rules are bent when the rules are completely wrong. Many people feel obliged to help you if you ask them, or failing that, tell you why they can't if they' cant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:Compensation is fair actually quite good if you account for everything. Add to that the culture of openness internally, and you get things like discussing compensation, with people visibly volunteering a lot of info for conversations, without repercussions. Companies can't legally punish people for discussing compensation with other employees. That's a federal law as far as I remember.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Companies can't legally punish people for discussing compensation with other employees. That's a federal law as far as I remember. And yet
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Companies can't legally punish people for discussing compensation with other employees. That's a federal law as far as I remember. My last company had us sign an NDA for every equity award. I don't know if that would survive a legal challenge, but I do know that it wasn't worth the effort involved for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
ultrafilter posted:My last company had us sign an NDA for every equity award. I don't know if that would survive a legal challenge, but I do know that it wasn't worth the effort involved for me. That's sad and is only used to drive wages down.  I know how much my coworkers make and they know how much I do. I like it because it's helped keep wages fair in the engineering department.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:55
|
|