Tell HN: Thank you whoishiring, a.k.a. Matthew Walsh-Cloonagh
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2391828
Four years of yeoman service later, our mysterious benefactor has gotten a lot busier and arranged with us to take over the account. I asked if we could thank him publicly and he said sure. So thank you, Matthew Walsh-Cloonagh! You've helped a ton of people get jobs, and made Hacker News a better place. We're all much obliged.
Any thoughts about "Who is Hiring" and related threads that any of you want to share? Fire away.
Edits, based on the discussion below:
I think we'll change the time of these postings to 11 AM Eastern time. This balances east and west a bit better, and has the practical advantage that when something goes haywire with one of them, the problem won't languish for hours before we fix it. (If anybody posts before 11 AM Eastern tomorrow morning wondering where the thread is, or tries to make one, please refer them here.)
We'll also make the posts show up on the first weekday of each month, instead of each day—but that won't make a difference until August.
Finally, we'll make it more explicit that to post a job in the thread you need to personally be part of the hiring company, not a recruiter or third party.
137 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] thread@dang Will it be published by the "whoishiring" or "_whoishiring" account going forward?
Thanks Matthew.
Thank you Matthew, and HN for continuing it on his behalf.
1. If it's not done yet, can you disable pagination for these posts to always show all comments?
2. Order top-level comments by submission time rather than with the regular HN weighing algorithm. This would make it much easier to see what new was posted since the last refresh.
Re 2, that seems worth considering. Presumably most recent at the top?
We get about as many good candidates from these posts as we get from the other recruitment channels together. Invaluable for us. Thanks!
Seems fair, yes.
What about recruiters who are full-time employees of the hiring company?
I think a stronger restriction, namely "you should only post about positions which you will be personally involved with" would make this more even useful -- we don't need to be told every month that Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple are hiring, but if tptacek (to take a local celebrity as a convenient hypothetical) posted that Starfighter was looking to hire a sysadmin then potential candidates would be able to ask questions and anticipate getting useful answers.
Do you prefer to see 10 posts from my company, from each hiring manager with open positions?
But I can also see why it seems inconvenient to have many people from the same company post as well.
Only large(ish) companies have recruiters that are also employees. Most small startups have no one in that role, and medium sized startups would be more likely to have a freelance consultant than an employee. (Our startup has used a consultant for more specialised or senior roles).
Its seems strange that we'd want to let the Google/FB/Apple etc HR folk post, but not "Sally Smith, consultant to UltraSecretLabs.io"
It seems the easiest rule is what you suggest, ban them all - you can only post roles that you're personally involved in.
Just my 2¢.
On the other hand, an in-house recruiter, an outside recruiter contracted by the company, the actual hiring manager, just a peer or colleague, the company's receptionist... I think all these should be allowed.
If we're going to cut one more cohort from the above paragraph, cut the 3rd party recruiters. However, excluding all talent acquisition teams and/or other co-workers within the company seems unnecessarily restrictive.
Existing HN hiring threads start with:
> "Please lead with the location of the position and include the keywords INTERN, REMOTE, or VISA if the corresponding sort of candidate is welcome."
Searching for "intern" matches postings with "internet", "international", etc. I've seen comments suggesting that a search for "remote" matches "no remote".
Here's a quick fix that uses a prefix, for consideration:
> "Please lead with the location of the position and include the keywords +INTERN, +REMOTE, or +VISA if..."
Clamp down on those. Moderators should moderate.
Half the posters already ignore and won't even mention if they allow (or not) REMOTE. These should be removed by the mods and downvoted by everyone else. You'd only have to do this a few times before people wised up and started putting effort into their posting rather than just copypasting their job posting from all the other job sites out there.
Our cycles are limited. If we spend time doing that, we won't be able to do other, more valuable things for the community. Plus we'd be miserable, and also you vastly overestimate our power to induce compliance.
I agree, though, that copy/pasting job posts from other places goes against the spirit of these threads.
This isn't a solution because posts say "interns welcome" or stuff like that.
Shameless plug: Please send me PRs. https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote-job
Now, I'm not sure how search engines deal with +A, google considers +A to search on G+ (used to mean "mandatory", now quotes mean that)
So the prefix idea might work but it may need to change
The problem is that when you do that every instance of the word internet also shows up in the search.
I often "view" them before people have stopped posting to it. As such, I have absolutely no idea which ones are new or which ones I've already read after I've refreshed the page to get new items.
The only easy-to-implement solution I can think of is allowing us to sort the posts in chronological order as opposed to the hybrid point/time system that's currently in place.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hacked-hacker-news...
https://gist.github.com/JasonGhent/8b04fffbacb006cb870b
I have since found that with over 800 posts each month positive sorting is not efficient enough. Around the same time I found a search plugin from another user, but I haven't used it. [2]
[1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/modwh/hefjlchphbeb... [2] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hn-whos-hiring-job...
After thinking about this for a bit I believe it's best addressed by solving this problem for all threads, not just whoishiring threads. That is, make an easy way to optionally limit a thread to the comments you haven't seen before (edit: or highlight them). This is something we intend to do.
One suggestion for the posting text: maybe provide a more machine-readable template for submitters to provide metadata? Just a minimal amount of metadata to make it easier for those who write mini-apps to parse the submissions.
To refer back to the most recent hiring post:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9471287
Seems like submitters try to do their own, e.g.
How about this, for each job:[Company name] | [Job title] | [location(s), semi-colon delimited] ["Remote", if applicable] | [Full-time/Part-Time/Intern/Visa/Remote | [Optional list of semi-colon delimited skills]
e.g.
Acme | Senior Database Engineer | San Francisco, CA; Las Vegas, NV (Remote possible) | Full-time | MySQL
{ "company_name": "Acme", "job_title": "Senior Database Engineer", "locations": [ "San Francisco, CA", "Las Vegas, NV", "Remote" ], "full_time": true, "skills": ["mysql"] }
Also, your post is right now somewhere around #6 on google for "Job Description Markup Language".
By far the most important information seemed to be location and/or remote filtering. Gaganpreet stepped up and is doing a pretty good job with https://github.com/gaganpreet/hn-hiring-mapped, but it's still not 100%.
I would really love for whoshiring to provide this pipe-delimited template, and then optionally allow posters to conform to it. I also agree with danso's order of importance, but would also like to add that the location string(s) should be something geocodable by Maps APIs (ie, feed the string in and get an unambiguous LatLng).
"Proposed Who Is Hiring Spec"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9636104
I don't actually like that proposal[1] very much as it stands -- but perhaps moving discussion/pull-requests there would be useful? (I've not yet added my own comments there, but now with two threads on the subject on hn, I'm seeing the need to consolidate, if we want to get a wide range of contributions, and try to gravitate to the "best" solution...).
[ed: ah, I see I'm replying to the author here... I was a bit quick. Anyway -- the point of discussing a spec with a tool that support pull-requests/diffs etc still stands -- and I think it might be a good idea.]
[1] https://github.com/perspectivezoom/who-is-hiring-spec/
If you compare top and bottom of the May 2015 thread it seems that the quality drops with newer accounts or low karma accounts.
I think a rule like this would also ensure that it's this community posting to the thread and not someone from the outside trying to post to yet another job board--which is the spirit of the "no recruiters" rule.
Any objections?
But I'm all about increasing interactions. Not restricting them based on race, gender, or having a unfortunate job title like "recruiter."
I'd rather let in 500 crappy posts than turn away a single valuable newcomer to HN. Has upvote/downvote truly proven inadequate for moderating this particular thread?
I'm not sure exactly what ratio I'd tolerate, but I think that's a bit extreme.
If you want to prevent recruiters then the principle-company's email address should be in the job description and/or a link to that company's job description (maybe this could be required if the threshold wasn't overcome). Also, most recruiters don't want to reveal the name of the company hiring, so requiring real company names (I guess you would have to ban 'stealth' startups) would be necessary too.
Right, which is why we're generally opposed to restrictions on posting despite the headaches of being a public optionally-anonymous forum. We don't want to miss the chance of having, say, Alan Kay show up to comment on PARC, or someone who did a Ph.D. on a topic make an account to comment on it.
But posting to a monthly Who Is Hiring thread isn't really a serendipity thing. You have to know a bit about the community to do it—and if you do know a bit about the community, getting to 5 or 10 karma is easy. Even if it took a while, you wouldn't likely miss a thread, because they stay open for 2 weeks.
We've been getting a lot of emails from people asking how to post jobs in these threads, and although we always answer them, I sometimes do so with a sinking feeling that these are probably not quite the sort of posts the community wants to see more of. A very small karma threshold—just enough to be a speed bump—would probably take care of most of that. However I'm not attached to the idea.
Edit: I should add that we wouldn't do this without looking at the data first. "Looking at the data" in this case means looking at all the comments posted to those threads by accounts below a certain karma and/or age. If there were lots of high-quality posts in there, we wouldn't do it.
+1 and I'd be interested in seeing this data summarized. I looked through the May 2011-2015 posts and a cursory inspection led to my suggestion. I saw a few posts from new or low karma users which were fine, so there will be some casualties with a speed bump and the data should justify the benefits before implementing.
For example, some companies don't encourage participation in public discussion boards such as HN, but posting jobs on HN is fine.
I don't think we'll impose a karma threshold. Browsing through this morning's thread, most of the posts are clearly legit. Punishing innocent posts (as would inevitably happen with a threshold) isn't justified unless the problem becomes critical, and it's not.
- "Sorry no remote"
- "REMOTE - No"
- "remote unavailable currently"
- etc.
The phrasing should change to:
REMOTE or ON-SITE
That way, from amongst even the coolest "Who is Hiring" sites, like this:
http://hnhiring.me/
Folks can finally filter out the non-remote work properly.
"Proposed Who Is Hiring Spec"
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9636104
- REMOTE(global)
- REMOTE(continental US)
- REMOTE(UK work hours)
A number of employers consider "Remote" to mean come in to the office once a month, but many job seekers think of remote as live on the other side of the world.
Encouraging some disambiguation would help.
For the same reason, I think it's a lost cause trying to impose a machine-readable format on text fields, as many have been suggesting. There would be so many exceptions as to make the situation more complicated, not less.
Eg.
Hacker Job1, SF, ONSITE, $120k-$150k (here is an example of local only) --- [short description]
Hacker Job2, NY, REMOTE(East Coast only), $100k-$130k (remote but within same time-zone) --- [short description]
Hacker Job3, London, REMOTE(global), £70k-£90k (remote "anywhere") --- [short description]
-------------------------------------------------------
Also, I agree about the free-form text issue, it's not something easy to overcome (especially when HN touts as "minimalist" - which I incur to mean "simple" too), so maybe you and the community should gently try to nudge posters that "No remote" in their messages just makes peoples lives a bit more difficult.
Lastly, I guess I'd just like to add that what made the "who is hiring" partly successful (IMO) was that it was simple. Too many rules and too much detail will turn posts into TL;DR .
I agree and personally I think HN hiring posts should avoid machine friendly formats anyways. I like to think this group is niche enough to allow the hiring individual to write a post and have it read by interested candidates. meaning no middle men/machines required. I', just a single user, but I don't find threads too large that a ctrl-f doesn't suffice for my needs.
dang, thank you for all you've done thus far.
Name: xxxx
Location: xxxx
Url/E-Mail to apply: xxxx
Remote: yes/no
Technologies Used: xxxx
Required experience:
Are candidates expected to already know your stack, or will you consider people who are switching areas?
Do you have open offices? Cubicles?
Do you have daily meetings?
etc
For example, I'm only considering NYC, so I would like to easily search for:
NYC only
experience matching mine OR employers willing to let people switch
If anyone didn't have open offices, that would be a big ++ for me, so that would be nice to know.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hn-whos-hiring-job...
(I know not everyone is in the US, but there's no denying that the SF Bay Area contains a huge proportion of this site's audience.)
Edit: I updated the OP to say 11 AM. What swayed me was remembering all the times that problems with a whoishiring post stuck around for hours before one of us western types could fix it. This will make that less likely.
My university has little to no programming jobs in their career resources, so I have to rely on my own research and HN has made it a lot easier.
Although I haven't gotten an offer yet (really just applied to a few out of curiosity), every company I've interviewed from here has been excellent interviewers and people in general. Way, way better than Angel List!
I worry that even though I work through the real analysis, linear algebra, topology, probability, and convex optimization books that someone will not hire me but I get a sigh of relief seeing people willing to look past not having a degree.
Kudos on volunteering my hard working internet friend.
It would be nice to be allowed to post a single "OH HAI I'M A RECRUITER WITH THESE ROLES" comment on the Hiring Threads. Spamming the thread with 10 jobs, or misrepresenting a recruitment role as the company hiring are obvious losses, but if you're looking at a "Who is Hiring" thread, you're looking for a job. I would like to be able to mention my recruitment speciality and my recruiter email address on these threads, clearly labelled as such. If it gets downvoted to all heck, then it gets downvoted, but it would be nice to give this a go.
how about moving it back or forward if the first of the month happens to fall on a weekend? seems to me like it should get moved to the nearest monday in that case.
Much of the value in hn in general and the who's hiring in particular has to do with the community.
On the other hand, the postings have grown in number, and with the poor (non-existent) tooling, it's getting harder to find a subset of "interesting" jobs.
I'd be happy to see changes that focused on making the ads better for the "typical" target: make it easy to short-list interesting opportunities. The classical problem here is browser text-search and "remote/no-remote/remote-ok/remote: no" (my: suggestion: #remote).
The removal of paging is great for this. I only now figured out that the "time since posted"-text is the new place for the "link-to-this-comment"-link. That's also useful, as it allows one to "save" ads to new browser tabs.
It's one thing for my comments to be bolted to the tops of threads about crypto, owing (in reality) mostly to name recognition.
It's another thing entirely for my job posts to be bolted to the tops of hiring threads, which they were, routinely. It felt like cheating, and it was pretty valuable to us. It's perverse.
I was reading the hiring threads regularly for a number of months, and I picked up the habit of scrolling past the first N postings each time: they were highly-ranked HN users posting jobs for their companies, often repeated month to month. Good jobs, no doubt, and good people, but I didn't need a monthly reminder that (e.g.) Matasano is hiring in cities far away from me. :)
I would argue that it does, and for that reason, it's useless outside the context of sorting a comment thread. Certainly, it doesn't justify giving top rank to a job post.
1. "Andrew Ng forming brand new GPU machine learning team in Bay Area for Baidu, apply at []"
would rank way higher than
2. "I am a newly graduated MBA, I have a fantastic business idea but until the funding is lined up, looking for a co-founder to build MVP, 5% equity negotiable but we're taking a salary cut until Round A"?
I certainly upvote the better job ads and assumed everybody else did, and if you want an Idris research job, you'll probably be searching for the keyword rather than browsing top results.
It goes both way - I also enjoy reading the top posts because they indicate what the community thinks are the best jobs at the moment (and thus what's hot).
To be more meta, the "standard" for voting is the ranking algorithm, and should be designed to generally allow better comments to filter through regardless of their subject - including jobs. The specifics are left to the HN team but based on my year and a bit on this site, they seem to be optimizing for quality and be quite successful at it.
To answer your comparison above, I think (but never checked) that the key implementation difference is that some voters have more power than others, and/or the audience is more qualified on most subjects, than YouTube's (although the Haskell subreddit, the only one I'm relatively familiar with, has excellent upvoting and moderation habits imho). Nevertheless, in the one subject I'm relatively familiar with (classical music) it seems that better performances DO get ranked better on YouTube, so I'm not sure whether I am right to criticize YouTube either.
Edit - just had a thought - the OP might be correct in the case where there was just too much volume for anything past the first, say, 1/10th of job postings to be read - even with floating new posts to the top. It's relatively easy to check for this case by looking at the distribution of views, upvotes and flags per post.
I never upvote or downvote job offers, and I think it might actually go the other way: people would downvote good job offers hoping that less people would see them, which means less competition.