Hacker News Reader

Comment by jwwest | Hacker News Reader

Having been both a developer and a hiring manager, I've come to the uneasy acceptance that recruiting is necessary a lot of the time. However, recruiters that I've dealt with I've personally vetted as being decent folks who don't resort to this type of spam.

I become truly depressed when I commiserate with other hiring types. When I bemoan the general horribleness of the recruiting industry as exampled by these bottom-feeders, the other party simple sighs and goes "yeah, but that's just how it is" Why is this acceptable? Why hasn't this industry been disrupted yet? It's a huge, HUGE market, yet I haven't seen any significant innovation in it except for yet another job site that pops up occasionally.

View on HN

Here's why it works...

Most companies can't recognize talent from a resume and need someone to tell them someone is talent.

Recruiters do a pre-screen interview and get an idea of whether you can pass an interview, recruiters then tell employers someone is talented, and here is this great persons's resume. Since the recruiter has already checked that the individual has a pulse and can answer questions intelligently they usually get the job.

Most companies could insource their recruiting efforts if they were willing to do more than just throw resumes out, if they paid their HR department 3 months salary for everyone who was hired (like recruiters are) there'd be drastically different attitudes and practices in HR.

Instead HR just throws out resumes that don't match the specs the manager sent because there's no incentive to actually hire people.

It's not uncommon for someone to apply for a job and a month or two later a recruiter calls you for the exact same job detailing how the company can't find anyone to fill the role, oddly enough they then hire you based on the interview the recruiter was able to leverage through their relationship.

Recruiters do a pre-screen interview and get an idea of whether you can pass an interview, recruiters then tell employers someone is talented, and here is this great persons's resume.

In my experience (as someone who was hiring) this is the part that is total bullshit, though. I had candidates openly admit to me that "[recruiter X] told me I should mention Y" while I interview them for a position they are clearly unable to do. The core problem is that recruiters are paid on a commission basis, so I have absolutely zero faith that anything they are telling me is the truth. They want to make a sale. The fact that every single one talks to me as if we've been friends for decades just adds to the creepy factor.

The problem is that disruption generally means automation, and there's no good way to automate the developer recruitment process. To really be good, recruiters need to have enough of a technical background to understand what they're looking for and take the time to do research and personalize each pitch. Sites like Github are the most useful and potentially most disruptive recruiting tools, because they take work that used to be hidden away or scattered all over the Internet and make it public, centralized, and easily searchable. Most recruiters don't know how to use those tools effectively, though, because they can't understand the data they're looking at, and aren't good enough storytellers to make just a few pitches per day and be confident that some of them will land.

Based on the quality of recruiters I've dealt with I honestly think you could automate their job comPletely. They seem to do key word searches to find my resume and have zero idea about development tools, process, and technique. At least a computer would know the difference between Java and JavaScript or that asking me if I prefer VB.NET or ASP.NET is a nonsensical question.

Actual recruiter cold-call question in 2011: "So Rails, is that like Java?"

> and there's no good way to automate the developer recruitment process

Part of the process has already been automated -- sites that test a candidate's ability to solve coding problems.

Algorithm? Design? OOP? Functional? what about tricks? best-practices? "Tell me more why you choose approach X over Y"? what about "write me unit-tests".

Sites you mentioned probably a bit of an upgrade from certification :)

It is the classic spam problem -- there is no/little penalty from just shooting millions of emails out. The real cost is carried entirely by the recepient, but he has no way to out-out.

The solution is judicous fines, atleast as great as those for copyright infringement. If each recruiter was fined 100k for each email, it would quickly stop being an issue.

And frankly, if you cannot hire without these people, you need to become more involved in the local tech meetings, conferences, etc.

If you already have a job, or have no problem finding work given your experience, this is not a problem. Ignore it and move on.

If you are in that same position and are advocating change in the industry, you're trying to involve yourself in a fight that isn't your own.

People new to the field rely on these roles to get their foot in the door. Hell, I did, and I wouldn't be where I was without it. I'm not going to start a revolution against recruiters though, because I am now unable to join the fight as a professional.

If recruiters fuck you off, block them and ignore them. Don't find ways to deprive others of the same opportunity.

We are trying to disrupt it, starting with talented local freelancers. We're not going head on with recruitment... just yet. There may be rockstar recruiters out there that could beat any algorithm solution.. but the first goal is to cut out the vast majority of recruiters who simple shovel resumes around and rely on mass mail or linkedin spam to find candidates. http://dragonflylist.com

I imagine it is in the process of being disrupted, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coursera#Business_plan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com