It really depends on the skill area you are looking to focus on. If you're looking for senior web developers or general backend system developers, it can be a good place.
If you're looking for a special technical skill set like security, cryptography, specific database systems, machine learning, other mathematics focuses, etc., it can be a lot harder.
In my experience talking with candidates from SO the main issues are:
- it is perceived as being overrun with start-up job ads looking for cheap, "full-stack" engineers, with job ads that have a distinctly "disposable engineer" vibe to them.
- among more legitimate-sounding ads, the perception is that it's all web development, not really worth the effort to search if you're in a technical specialty area.
- Stack Overflow itself does not really enforce employers to be any nicer than they have to be on any other site. Employers still give little or no feedback, waste candidate time, and 'ghost' them by dropping out of communication inexplicably in parts of the interview process.
- I've also heard from candidates, and experienced myself, almost outright antagonism for having a high reputation score on the site, or having a curated list of well-written answers highlighting skills.
The last point goes into much bigger issues with tech hiring, like the whole whiteboard hazing phenomenon, and the arms race to have more and more outrageously complex interview practices or inappropriate hiring standards (like rapidly answering esoteric trivia through some online coding test portal).
It seems like when a candidate can give you something, like a link to their GitHub page, a link to a live-running personal project, a link to their Stack Overflow answers -- then other developers in the interview process almost act more antagonistic and more skeptical of someone's software skills -- almost like they need to prove that the candidate is not as skilled as they are, and that these outward credentials don't matter.
It's an attitude like, "only the credentials that I have matter, so I need to poke holes in this other person's profile, to validate myself as being better."
I've definitely reached out to passive candidates on Stack Overflow and learned feedback like this, that they don't pay much attention to job activity there because if they put effort into their Q&A activity, it's as likely to be held against them as it is to help get them a job.
These are just my experiences ... your mileage may vary.
Sure sad, but sometimes better to uncover company culture issues quickly and leave before engaging. Would you like to work with such selfish perfectionist everyday?
True. The company I worked for the shortest time in my life had a similar culture. There was basically no interaction between employees other than trying to one-up each other with tricky math puzzles and obscure details of the C++ specification. And not in a friendly banter way. I quit after 4 months.
On the flip side, I can't think of a single time an employer has questioned my complete lack of a public profile. For every discriminating company that thinks a saturated GitHub and routine Medium posts are meaningful heuristics, there might be at least 9 others that couldn't care less.
It's quite surprising that they've ended up pigeonholed into full stack web devs, given that they have specialty forums for a lot of technical skills including some of the ones you mentioned. They seem like they should be well positioned to do really well in niches where they have a Q+A board.
that is true, people have always tried to dismantle my "software knowledge" just because I have maintained big projects. i also got a good(not awesome) SO profile, with a lot of questions answered, a few very popular ones.
I see also how they generally try to also get me a lower salary than them. I think those things in the context of a company works well for them. You generally get a lower salary, rarely recognition you deserve(apart from peers which are very dedicated as well). But the big and great idea of capitalism is that you aren't tied to just a company, you work a few years in one, jump to another because somebody really likes your work and keep going. The dynamics of somebody who is good at something is very different from somebody who is average/mediocre and compensate it with a lot of politics. You just can't beat people on their game if you want to do real work.
also I see that in companies people who don't ever contribute to open source and yet think they are great usually side with peers which do the same and try to only do politics in the office, which kind of works.
i sincerely believe that inside a company, it is a bit like high school, people form political alliances and that will be how popular and likely to be promoted to senior management, if they do very well on their assignments(which in case, for most of us, is writing good software), they will just get some grade and maybe a tiny upgrade on their salary and that is all. for people who want to write software for a long time, a good idea is to switch jobs often, try to get a tiny pay raise everytime at least and construct a network of peers who respect your work.
10 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 31.9 ms ] threadIf you're looking for a special technical skill set like security, cryptography, specific database systems, machine learning, other mathematics focuses, etc., it can be a lot harder.
In my experience talking with candidates from SO the main issues are:
- it is perceived as being overrun with start-up job ads looking for cheap, "full-stack" engineers, with job ads that have a distinctly "disposable engineer" vibe to them.
- among more legitimate-sounding ads, the perception is that it's all web development, not really worth the effort to search if you're in a technical specialty area.
- Stack Overflow itself does not really enforce employers to be any nicer than they have to be on any other site. Employers still give little or no feedback, waste candidate time, and 'ghost' them by dropping out of communication inexplicably in parts of the interview process.
- I've also heard from candidates, and experienced myself, almost outright antagonism for having a high reputation score on the site, or having a curated list of well-written answers highlighting skills.
The last point goes into much bigger issues with tech hiring, like the whole whiteboard hazing phenomenon, and the arms race to have more and more outrageously complex interview practices or inappropriate hiring standards (like rapidly answering esoteric trivia through some online coding test portal).
It seems like when a candidate can give you something, like a link to their GitHub page, a link to a live-running personal project, a link to their Stack Overflow answers -- then other developers in the interview process almost act more antagonistic and more skeptical of someone's software skills -- almost like they need to prove that the candidate is not as skilled as they are, and that these outward credentials don't matter.
It's an attitude like, "only the credentials that I have matter, so I need to poke holes in this other person's profile, to validate myself as being better."
I've definitely reached out to passive candidates on Stack Overflow and learned feedback like this, that they don't pay much attention to job activity there because if they put effort into their Q&A activity, it's as likely to be held against them as it is to help get them a job.
These are just my experiences ... your mileage may vary.
My resume has a section "Achievements" with "StackOverflow: top 2%, 300 answers" with a link to my profile.
IMO a good StackOverflow profile shows:
1) A skillset
2) A proficiency to solve real life problems (quickly) just by reading (incomplete/wrong) problems description
3) Good communication skills
4) A self-motivated and passionate person
Well, nobody never said/asked anything about mine. As if every one of their candidates had 10k points on StackOverflow.
I still had to pass really stupid/basic tests for jobs I'm obviously competent for.
Worth noting I also have 7 years of xp, including xp as tech lead. And a master in CS.
A lot of employers will pass on you if you lack an easily searchable LinkedIn or Facebook profile, which is frightening. But still plenty won’t care.
I see also how they generally try to also get me a lower salary than them. I think those things in the context of a company works well for them. You generally get a lower salary, rarely recognition you deserve(apart from peers which are very dedicated as well). But the big and great idea of capitalism is that you aren't tied to just a company, you work a few years in one, jump to another because somebody really likes your work and keep going. The dynamics of somebody who is good at something is very different from somebody who is average/mediocre and compensate it with a lot of politics. You just can't beat people on their game if you want to do real work.
also I see that in companies people who don't ever contribute to open source and yet think they are great usually side with peers which do the same and try to only do politics in the office, which kind of works.
i sincerely believe that inside a company, it is a bit like high school, people form political alliances and that will be how popular and likely to be promoted to senior management, if they do very well on their assignments(which in case, for most of us, is writing good software), they will just get some grade and maybe a tiny upgrade on their salary and that is all. for people who want to write software for a long time, a good idea is to switch jobs often, try to get a tiny pay raise everytime at least and construct a network of peers who respect your work.