Hacker News Reader

Comment by pasharayan | Hacker News Reader

It's easy to forget, but LinkedIn doesn't have rich resume data of candidates. With Hire, Google now gets rich resume & employee data - data, when coupled with search history, that can now be used to build better user profiles than before.

Given this, "Hire" is (or could become) a trojan horse into replacing the network effect that LinkedIn has created.

View on HN

Linkedin doesnt have resumes?? Every linkedin profile is technically a resume. Dates, roles, qualifications are all there along with references.

This. Everybody I know uses LinkedIn as their de-facto resume. It is their most up to date and complete CV with all roles, dates, recommendations, education information, skills, links to projects etc.

LinkedIn definitely has very rich resume data.

Many companies have HR software that will even let you apply with your LinkedIn profile instead of a resume/filling out an app.

LinkedIn actually rolled out a new feature "Easy Apply" or something where all you need to do is click an Apply button and it (presumably) sends your profile information to the job.

Most resume's in non-technical fields (think management, banking, consulting, law etc) will have line items of deals/projects/responsibilities with rich information of how many people they've managed, the size of the deal, type of work etc.

Most of the time people don't want to post this on LinkedIn as its too public of a space to go about bragging of your achievements at employer X. With this system, Google basically has a window into this more specific information.

It's possible to load up a traditional resume with 5-10 pages of granular detail like this, but that's actually more awkward than helpful. Once a (shorter) resume establishes basic competence, employers generally want to do the next round of screening based on face-to-face contact. Asking the resume to do all the work will lead you to hire the very best resume writers, rather than the very best candidates. (Note that strong passive candidates, who already have good jobs, do not spend a lot of time polishing their resumes.)

In non-technical fields, taking candidates through a face-to-face interview tends to be the best way of gauging grit, creativity, motivation, fit/compatibility, etc. That's especially true if the job specs are still fluid. In that case, a face-to-face interview lets both sides play around with the job description a bit.

Google is supremely good at coming up with engineering solution to engineering problems, and its decision to build an applicant tracking system is encouraging. But Google also is a bit prone to taking the same approach, no matter what. If we're talking about the full sweep of candidate assessment, that isn't an engineering problem.

"Resumé" appears to have a very special meaning to some people. Triplebyte specifically advertises a "no-resumes" process. But when I interviewed with them, the first thing they asked was "where have you worked before, and what did you do there?"

We (Triplebyte) don't ask engineers where they've worked until the end of the final interview. It's the last thing we ask (after all the technical evaluation and scoring is done). We regularly find and pass great programmers who are totally self-taught (and would have been screened out by any resume screen process). We ask about previous work at the end because we want statistics on who is applying to us. This lets us compare our process to more traditional credential screens (I write about this on our blog)

I'm willing to believe that my memory is wrong and the question came later. But "resumes when we ask for them, which we guarantee we will do" is not quite the same policy as "no resumes".

Linkedin isn't optimized as a physical resume.

If all of the important information doesn't fit on one page, in a way that is nicely organized and looks good, then it is not a resume.

Nobody should ever print out their linkedin profile and then hand it to a recruiter.

LinkedIn has a PDF export and I see plenty of exported LinkedIn profiles when doing candidate interviews.

Seems to work for a lot of people.

Sure, and the PDF export produces a shitty resume.

Yes, you CAN do it, and some people indeed do, but my opinion is that this is a poor idea because the service isn't optimized for it.

> when coupled with search history.

Why is this ok?

To better serve the user.

"Based on your profile in Google Hire and your interest in SpaceX launches, you may be interested to know that a job opportunity is available:

> NASA

> Monte Carlo IV&V Analysis

> Colcord, WV, [9] miles from your home, [15 minute] average commute time.

(... the user has received this message because NASA has put out a job ad using hire and has specified that among the skillsets they're seeking is mathematics and engineering and among the interests that might be related are SpaceX, Blue Origin, United Launch Alliance, etc.)

:-) I and a mate (ex mi/comms) received on linkedin the same pitch to apply for the Security Service (MI5).

My Mate laughed it off and mentioned maybe if they didn't pay poverty wages.

Associating your resume/public profile and search history is sure to send a lot of people running the other way.

I think this is going to run into all sorts of potential problems in the EU.

> when coupled with search history, that can now be used to build better user profiles than before

I won't be using Hire to host my resume that's for sure.

> when coupled with search history, that can now be used to build better user profiles than before.

Can we stop sharing unsubstantiated claims please?

"No, Google Hire Won’t Share Your Search History With Employers"

http://gizmodo.com/no-google-hire-won-t-share-your-search-hi...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com