Hacker News Reader

Comment by nathanaldensr | Hacker News Reader

For tactical positions like programming, required skills and optional skills are probably a minimum. However, I have found that the most attractive job ads are those that talk about the culture of the company in addition to what they expect of me. I like ads that communicate that I would be an appreciated member of the team.

Dry lists of bullet points are a turn-off; they give the impression that the company just wants a warm body.

I also avoid companies that rely on hyperbole in their job ads--"rockstar," "ninja," "guru," etc. They give the impression that the one who wrote the job ad and/or the hiring manager have no idea how to truly quantify good talent.

View on HN

> For tactical positions like programming, required skills and optional skills are probably a minimum.

True, but you have to be a little careful with "required skills". At my last job, the CTO asked me to check out a job posting, and the "required skills" list had our entire tech stack (maybe 20 items, including several rare ones). We were literally asking for a single person who knew as much as our entire company did!

This can be especially problematic because not everyone sees "required" the same way: https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless...

+1 to “rockstar”, “guru”, etc being a dead giveaway of a terrible company.

Also don't talk about the 'free soda', 'nerf gun wars', 'air hockey table' or something else that indicates you treat your employees like children. I also hate the ninja/rockstar stuff.

Free food makes sense due to travel time and taxes.

When you buy your own food, you pay with post-tax income. The employer can provide that food for less money than it takes to pay you the extra money to buy the food. Alternately, you can get better food.

Travel time can be hours. You may need to struggle with traffic or wait for a train. You may need to get all dressed up for the cold and then shovel snow off your car.

Agreed. Save that money to pay good talent more, and save the time so I can get out of work in 40 hours a week or less.

“Save that money to pay good talent more”

The whole point is all that stuff costs much less than any meaningful pay raise.

I’ve seen them become unfashionable over the past few years. Is it the implied individualism that gives these words “terrible company” associations?

Is there a good word for an experienced person who is better at shutting the door and working through problems rather that doing things in a team?

No, it’s the implied treating your employees as children who value “totally zany” job titles rather than respect, meaningful work and compensation. It shows either lack of professionalism or malicious “how can we fool those code monkeys” intent. Just use descriptive job titles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com