Hacker News Reader

> And a lot of the jobs are jobs that the person would do well in, but the employers don't bother to see it. I know there are jobs that I would have done extremely well in, but the companies were just black boxes.

Oh yes. One sticks in my mind. All of these details were present in my resume.

Job Ad:

> Expert level health insurance system knowledge and experience interfacing between EHR providers and partners.

Me: Director of Product for a claim benefits management software company (i.e. the software that insurers use to run their business, cut checks to providers, process premiums, calculate deductibles, etc., repricing, the whole nine yards). Also have worked extensively with EPIC, Cerner, ESOsuite. Have also worked in platform development, third party API integrations.

I get that it was probably the boilerplate, but stung that twenty minutes later:

"We apologize, but we are looking for someone whose skillset and experience better our aligns with our requirements for this position."

Huh. I may well not have been the ideal candidate, but not sure how much more closely my experience could have been "aligned".

The software job market for the past ~1.5 years has basically been an industrial belt-sander for candidates' self-esteem.

Generally recruitment tools have 3-4 options to pick, all of them carefully worded so that the reply to the candidate cannot be used against the company.

In your case it looks to me you were over-qualified. That's a real thing, since generally it means there will be salary issues later on in the process or you will be too senior compared with the people you work with (and leave)

Its frustrating but they did you a favor. Keep it up, something will turn up.

It's extra frustrating because after months of not working, I'm getting rejected for "too much experience" when applying to a lower-level job, getting "not enough" experience for senior-level jobs, etc...

The big problem seems to be that whatever hiring filters are being used for jobs now are completely broken. You can have a CV and history that exceeds the requirements of the job (based on the description) by miles, yet end up either ghosted or given a simple form based rejection letter.

Meanwhile you can apply to a role where you meet maybe one of the requirements, and then wind up with an interview. It's completely backwards, and makes me suspect that whatever system is being used to filter out applications simply doesn't work. That either the recruiter sorting them or the AI system being paid for is somehow doing worse than random chance.

> Meanwhile you can apply to a role where you meet maybe one of the requirements, and then wind up with an interview.

I've seen this pattern too, where I realize that one keyword on my resume got them to contact me.

Do they want spam?

Because this is how they get bored unemployed engineers to automate filling in hundreds of applications a day stochastically littered with keywords, potentially making the overall problem worse.

To be fair, the awfulness of job boards and the current hiring system is probably inspiring a lot of the same automation, even without this insanity. When your choices are 'fill in dozens of applications a week and hope one pays off' and 'spend a long time filling in one every day/two days, only to find the company doesn't even read it', then it becomes extremely easy to just treat it like a soulless box ticking exercise.

I was recently turned down on the first interview with an HR head. Motive: I said I can sometimes be perceived as frank in an argument, as an answer to the classic "tell me one of your shortcomings".

I'm not saying it can't be a valid reason. I guess I just don't get their values.

I'm convinced I would have been a pretty good match technically, but never got the chance to show it.

Italy, opening had max €50k budget.

I have 17 yoe and obviously it was not my first rodeo. Maybe I finally learned that sincerity and transparency is a dumbass move.

I am also typically overly transparent and honest about my existing on the ground experience, even though I also have a lot of experience in learning new things. It doesn't always work out, as people are often scared of transparency. I often get the feeling that there's something "hiding" behind it, which is quite unexpected. The same people will view absolutely opaque people as honest and upfront. Such is the human condition.

I never know what to reply to those "name a bad thing about you" questions. Being honest seems like a terrible idea, but then what would an acceptable "bad thing" be to lie about? Do I say the cliche of "I work too hard" that nobody believes?

Pick a minor flaw, and immediately start expounding on what you do to mitigate it. For example, "I can't always keep all of a complex thing in my head, so I've learned to do X, Y and Z to keep up -- Z is a really cool tool, actually, have you heard of it? I've found that, in my career as a..."

That’s right, answer a bullshit question with a bullshit answer. Because this is merely an exchange in a larger game.

All these people complaining that they got turned down for being “transparent” actually failed a real test: given a toy situation between people that doesn’t involve code, can you figure out what to do to accomplish your goal?

And if someone starts listing their top defects, the answer is “no.” Could be due to nerves, sure. But for a mid-career professional to not have known what to do to get past HR is a failure in problem-solving. Luckily it is solvable with the right mindset.

I'm the one above complaining for being "transparent".

You're right, I failed that game.

I'm fully aware I suck at playing the de-facto state of professionalism, or lack thereof, in the job market.

Fuck me for trying to be an adult trying to adult with other adults, I guess.