Hacker News Reader

Comment by shard | Hacker News Reader

Following these thoughts, and flipping the argument the other way:

For those of you reading who are against advertising, do you advertise your abilities and skillsets to potential employers that you wish to work for by sending them resumes and requesting meetings? Or do you just put your work on the internet and hope they discover it on their own? Perhaps for big-giant-recognizable names, the second method could work (just like Microsoft doesn't have to advertise Windows, I'm sure if John Carmack tweets an interest to join some startup, the startup would ping him), but for most people, including me, we have to rely on prettifying our resumes to catch the attention of employers.

View on HN

Just as a note, Microsoft literally does advertise for Windows, and considers it valuable to do so or they would not. They even brag about doing so: https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2021/09/09/micro...

Haha that's on me for grabbing an example out of the air without checking. But I'm sure you understand my point.

This is a terrible analogy, because I certainly don’t have billions to spend to put billboards of me near the places I want to be hired at. Sending a resume to recruiters is part of the hiring process (although, arguably, in our trade, it is often the other way around as well), being constantly bothered to buy more crap or subscribe to new services is not part of the buying process.

The point about $B is a matter of scale, so I don't think it matters, unless you are saying that companies with only $hundreds to spend on ads do not count as advertising.

The point about it being part of the hiring process seems to be pointing out that it is a codified and accepted process. If presenting ads are a codified and accepted practice (which I could argue it already is), does that make it acceptable?

The difference here is that the company actually wants to hire people, and is generally not that efficient at reaching out by itself (hence headhunters, etc), so sending your resume is helping them. Me, on the other hand, I do not want to buy a samsung S22 ultra edition.

By your statement, it would seem that you would find advertisements in response to your requests acceptable, is that correct? For example, you don't want a Samsung S22 Ultra Edition, but if you searched for car insurance, you are ok with ads.

Also, regarding unsolicited ads, it sounds like you will not send your resume to a company which does not list a position that fits you, regardless of how much you want to work for them. Which is fine, not everyone wants to take the extra effort. I have had companies create positions for me when I contacted them, even though they did not list an appropriate position originally.

I don't think that's a good analogy. We don't generally post our resumes as inline adverts on web pages, or on billboards outside tech campuses, hoping for a job. Companies start the conversation by creating a role and giving it to recruiters or advertising on a job board. We are basically just responding with the requested information.

Regarding posting inline on web pages, and on billboards, you seem to be discussing locations which are acceptable and not acceptable for resumes and ads. So could I summarize your point as resumes are acceptable if they are posted in certain locations (LinkedIn, AngelList, for example) and not others?

Regarding companies creating a role, would that imply that ads as a response to a search would be acceptable?

If you want to summarise my point, it was that your analogy was poor. It doesn't make any sense to compare sending a resume in response to a job listing with adverts for products I have not requested information about being inserted inline into web pages.

One is a response to a request, while the other is unsolicited and usually explicitly undesired.

A better analogy to sending resumes in response to job ads would be a salesperson describing the features of a product I've gone into a store and explicitly asked for information about.

> Regarding companies creating a role, would that imply that ads as a response to a search would be acceptable?

Most of my searches are not for products, so it doesn't make sense for Google etc to shoehorn ads for products into the results. If I'm searching for a product, then yes I want to see some ads for those products.

When I was talking about summarizing your point, I was looking to summarize your main arguments, as the statement "your analogy is poor" is fairly content-free.

> One is a response to a request, while the other is unsolicited and usually explicitly undesired. .. > If I'm searching for a product, then yes I want to see some ads for those products.

It looks like you find ads acceptable when it is relevant to your search (e.g. a search for a product), but not when it's not solicited. This would seem to imply that even if there is a company that you really want to work for, if they do not advertise a position that you would like to fill, you will not contact them hoping to find a fit. Which is fine, not everyone wants to do that. I personally have contacted companies which didn't have appropriate positions listed, and have had them create positions which fit me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com