Hacker News Reader

Comment by save_ferris | Hacker News Reader

Which is still a huge ask for most developers, especially if those 10 hours need to be within normal business hours. It's hard enough to apply, prep for coding challenges and interview whilst employed full-time. Why go through all of that for an extra $250/wk? That's like 2-3 hours of a senior bay area engineer's time.

I have a hard time believing that they're getting the absolute best engineers using this strategy, but who knows.

View on HN

The 10 hours are not within "normal" business hours – it's a fully remote company. In fact, it's best if they're not – it's a good test of whether someone can communicate well asynchronously (critical for success working remotely).

Source: I work at Automattic

10 hours a week is very much a second job though. It doesn't really matter when they are, that's a very large commitment over the course of 1-3 months. I'm not sure I know anyone who would be keen to do this.

That's fair – the process has since been revised, and on https://automattic.com/work-with-us/how-we-hire-developers/ we now say "This work is paid, part-time, and designed to last between two and eight weeks, for a total of around 40 hours of work".

It's still a commitment to be sure, but we try really hard to make it as accessible as we can.

Thanks for the link, saving that for later!

One question: is the 40 hours of work something that your company would like to use, that may go into production at Automattic? Or is it just some toy project to work on over that time?

For most engineering roles it's non-production and entirely synthetic, though based on a real app we use internally. It's the same trial project for everyone who applies to the same position.

source: I work on hiring at Automattic.

FWIW, I'm about as privileged as you get in tech, I have a job that is very flexible, I have few responsibilities outside of work, I don't need the money, and I don't care that much about salary.

I wouldn't work 40 hours spread over 2-8 weeks. It's just too much effort for too little reward. If it were paid at contractor rates then I might – I have done a small amount of contracting in my free time – but we're talking $100+ an hour (and I don't live in the bay area).

I understand the value to the company of a trial, and if I were unemployed I think it would be a great way for me to trial a company, and I'd be totally up for it, but fitting this around an existing job, let alone a family, child, being a carer, or just having an active social life, seems so much more effort than any other tech interview process I've seen.

If Automattic paid 2-3x more than others, then maybe it would be worth it for that chance, but that's not something I see advertised so I assume that's not the case.

Seeing this as part of the process I would be seriously concerned about the sorts of people I would end up working with, as I imagine it selecting for a very non-diverse set of developers who struggle to find jobs elsewhere.

That said, if this is not how things end up, I'd be keen to read a "deep dive" sort of thing on these topics, why the extensive trial works, etc. A full rebuttal to this would be a fascinating read.

It's not a one way street, the employee benefits from this as well. You have a 3 month trial to test them out just as much as they're testing you out. You may or may not be happy with this job in terms of cultural or work so it's better than quitting your current job to take another job that you end up not liking.

> Why go through all of that for an extra $250/wk?

You wouldn’t. If you’re interested in the job and Automattic are interested in you, you can do a trial. Because it’s a non-trivial time investment, they offer a small compensation.

If Google flies you in for a full day interview, do they pay you a full day’s salary? Or, any salary at all? They don’t.

My wife works at Automattic and was hired in this way. You can fit the hours around your other job, on weekends, at night. Recall that Automattic has teams around the world so there'll always be someone working on something in a time zone when you're available to work.

This sounds awesome to me actually!

The biggest risk for me is lowering my full time hours, and that can limit my ability to try/find new opportunities.

Being able to work on the weekends would be awesome - it wouldn't interfere with my normal work and if be making some extra money.

For context - I'm a 20 year old programmer without a degree, I'm sure those with families would find it more challenging to fit the 10 hours in.

I think you actually don't do any coding challenges, you get to know your colleagues, find out how they collaborate on a daily basis, and experience the company's development process first-hand. Sounds pretty nice, I would say.

There is a coding challenge at the beginning. You're given a sample problem to solve and then your problem is analyzed.

I know this because I've applied to Automattic before and got that far. :-D

Good to know. Thanks for sharing.

> Why go through all of that for an extra $250/wk?

People don't do these trials for the money. We do it because the payoff is getting a great job, and we want to know what the company is like to gauge if it would be a good fit for us and if it indeed is a great job.

I work at Automattic and the hourly rate was not at all a consideration for me when I did my trial. I understand it may be different for others, though!

It sounds like a great business model. Get developers for $25 per hour to prove themselves sell those services and those who produce at a greater rate keep on and pay them slightly more. Training and selecting is self serve.

You wouldn't get the best or keep the best but the game is getting more people on the training track so you can call them when new work is available.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com