Hacker News Reader

Comment by arcade79 | Hacker News Reader

Anecdotal, I know, but I was ghosted by Google back in 2004-2005 or thereabouts. Back and forth with a recruiter, who promised me that she would book phone screens. Then heard nothing. Pinged her repeatedly. Nothing.

A few years later got another Google recruiter after me. Ended up getting hired in 2008.

Looked up the previous recruiter. Her last day at the company was the day she promised she would book phone screens, or the day after (can't remember exactly, this is quite a few years ago). I can only assume she was suddenly let go.

Ever since, I keep wondering how many ghostings happen because the person holding the strings disappears for some reason, and there's a lack of system to follow up on that.

View on HN

A few years ago I was "between roles" and applied for a developer position at Roku. For a short time they seemed moderately interested, and I exchanged a few emails with a senior in-house recruiter. And then they went completely quiet - no response to my follow-up emails. So I just put it behine me and got on with looking for a job.

Just over a year later I received an email from another in-house recruiter at Roku, thanking me for my application but regretting that they wouldn't be going forward with it (or some such corporate-speak). Which was kind of surprising.

I did a few searches and discovered that the date they went quiet roughly coincided with a sizeable round of redundancies. I also looked up the new recruiter and found that they were new to the company and quite junior. So, presumably, their first task had been to clear-up the backlog. That year was by far the longest I've ever waited for a response to a job application.

And they didn't address the delay at all in their response to you?

Nope

I have a leaderboard of some of the longest turn-around times from initial contact to rejection. Thus far the winners (if you can call them that) have been:

Docusign (4 YEARS); Nintendo (34 months); Google (30 months); Starbucks (22 months); Netflix (18 months); Astral (13 months); Snowflake (8 months)

But I also have a short list of shortest turn-around times. I say this because some of them are truly insane:

GitHub (3 hours); Valve (4 hours, but it was a real human with actual comments); Lockheed martin (2 hours); UserTesting (1 hour); Mozilla (30 minutes); Cloudflare (-2 minutes); Matterport (0 minutes)

The -2 minutes you see there is one of the most insane things I've ever experienced: As I'm filling in the application, I get an email simultaneously thanking me for going throug the recruitment process but saying they "reviewed my application" (that hadn't even been fully submitted yet) and that I wasn't a good fit for the role.

Matterport wins the award for "well at least they're not bullshitting" -- as soon as I had submitted the application, I didn't even get an email saying thank you, just a straight up dialog box saying "You won't be considered for this position."

My worst experience was with Microsoft. Somewhere, their system is designed such that if you ever fall out of the standard process, you're "rejected" -- I have more rejection emails for a position I ended up getting (which got canned within the year, ironically enough) than any other kind of email, including daily emails with the recruiter and hiring manager. I got an email telling me "sorry no thanks" *after* I had already signed the paperwork.

I had the same experience with Cloudflare, It's been awhile, but I recall I uploaded my resume as one of the first steps and while I was filling out the later steps (copying the resume contents into fields) I got the same rejection error on trying to move to the next step. I presumed it was looking for specific resume keywords.

Those are some long turnaround times!

I actually had a positive, although a bit weird, experience with Microsoft. First, I got a response 3 months after I applied to schedule an interview! I figured it was due to the holidays. After the interview the recruiter called me personally and gave me the bad news that I didn’t get the job, but actually gave me specific feedback on where I did well and poorly on the interview. I was shocked! I think it’s the only time I’ve ever received non generic feedback.

I’ve heard a lot of bad experiences too, so unfortunately I think I was an exception!

> redundancies

Surely you meant lay-offs, or firings, not this corporate-speak.

Had this happen at the beginning of the pandemic. Did well on the full loop. The Friday of that week the recruiter reaches out to get references. A week goes by, I hear nothing. I contact one of my references, they heard nothing.

A month later another recruiter from the company reaches out and explains the recruiter I was talking to was let go that day. Told me in the system that I was approved to hire, but unfortunately along with the layoff came a 6 month hiring freeze for engineering.

It should be illegal to ask for references - the purpose of the interview is to understand your capabilities and abilities. If they couldn't suss all about you in that process then they have a shitty interview process.

You sound like someone that is frequently calling in sick!

> purpose of the interview is to understand your capabilities and abilities

And the purpose of the reference is to understand your actual performance.

If you’re lazy or cruel to coworkers, they won’t want to hire you.

If you can't get three people to vouch for you, honestly or otherwise, then that's a pretty big red flag.

It's usually last manager and co-workers where the company has a policy of not allowing references. Plus who wants to bother other people asking for a reference after you've been working for 25 years.

I have never heard of not allowing references. Is that a US thing?

While I don't love providing references, given they are such a standard part of the employment process (at least here in Australia), I can't see how a company could disallow providing character references. That would be a big red flag if I discovered that after starting to work somewhere.

Happens in Europe too. I think it’s a liability issue, not allowing the employee to speak in the name of the company. So the guidance is “tell the reference seeker to contact the HR department” and they’ll eventually reply that “this person worked here as <job title> between <time period>”.

That makes more sense. That's still a reference I guess. I was more confused about straight up denying somebody a reference, that would immediately make tenure at a company worth less.

In the company I worked for, we were strictly prohibited from saying anything other than “name, rank, and serial number” (date of arrival, date of departure, position).

It was a legal liability issue. I’m told it’s pretty much de rigueur, these days.

One of the nice things, after leaving, was finally being able to give good references for former employees, for whom I really wanted to give glowing references.

> “name, rank, and serial number”

That's what you give if captured as a prisoner of war.

I know. It was a figure of speech. Should have known better than to try.

Sorry about that, Chief (also a figure of speech, but a bit more obscure).

I big red flag for what? your social habits? lol - i guess if you have to work in a team then yeah, that would be important. but some jobs you just need to get in the truck and drive or w/e, but recruiters still stuck in the time old habit of asking for 3 references. its weak.

I imagine even in such a job, your shift lead, team boss, or warehouse manager or whatever, would be able to confirm "yes, Bob worked here in truck driving capacity from 2022 to 2024".

References have many levels of usefulness, but the bar starts low - did this person actually perform the job / hold the role they claim in a resume.

Next, and the one I'll agree you don't get as much in modern environment, is how much did they burn bridges / how competent they were. The team boss might be allowed to say "Bob?!? He drove well but god dammit the guy never showed up on time for his shift!". Or they might not.

Thanks for the perspective, I like the low bar usefulness, without that people can claim anything on their resume I guess. But I really dislike the opinions on peoples usefulness aspect. Much better to start someone off on a 3 or 6 month trial and if you think theyre not worth the money let them go. Heck, even keep the 6 mo review going forever if you want.

A truck driver has to deal with a lot of people at the two ends of the trip and needs to work in a team.

The big issue is that a lot of companies don’t allow asking their employees for references. Many even require references for their own hiring process (!!!)

Can you elaborate?

Many companies don't allow details, but are allowed to confirm a person was employed in a specific role. That's in many cases a sufficient to serve as a reference.

E.g. In my company we have a very strict policy for this, but are still allowed to answer "yes, Bob was employed as problem manager team lead from 2023 to 2025". Conversely as a hiring manager, I'll take that as a minimally sufficient data point in confirming resume entry.

In my company we have a very strict policy for this

My company is so strict about it that it farms out reference checks to a third company so that nobody inside the company knows that references were checked. Seems a little extreme to me.

> a third company so that nobody inside the company knows that references were checked

That’s actually really interesting. If you are actively looking that prevents anyone in the company from knowing you are looking, even if they did a reference check. That might be because of some previous lawsuits around terminating someone while getting a reference check before actually getting a new job/leaving.

It's always worth considering whether you have people who will give you genuine glowing references.

I've only ever once been at a place where there was a policy saying "all you are allowed to say during reference checks is "yes, they worked here as [job title], from {month/year} to {month/year}". And even with that policy/restriction I still found ways to be much much more positive about the people who were genuinely great.

One great way around that kind of policy - at least if you far enough into your career for it - is to provided references for people who are also no longer at the company they're being a referee for. There are 3 or 4 people from that job I mentioned that didn't allow me to elaborate, where I've subsequently provided reference including something like "Ratica? Yeah - she is great! She lead my QA team and worked magic! You might want to warn the company she's applying to that as soon as I get a role and budget that suits her QA skills, I'll 100% be trying to headhunt her away from them."

Congratulations, you cost her the job because the company didn't want to deal with an increased risk of her being poached. She's suing, by the way.

Nah, she got the job. And that lead to her next even better one. Now I'd need something to go spectacularly right for me to be able to afford to head hunt her.

(We still catch up for coffee every 6 or 12 months.)

> Many companies don't allow details, but are allowed to confirm a person was employed in a specific role.

WDYM by "allowed"? In my jurisdiction, a company is required to confirm (or deny, as the case may be) the dates and roles of employment when asked.

A reply along the lines of "we can not confirm $PERSON's employment as a $ROLE between $DATE1 and $DATE2" when $PERSON has salary slips for those dates is a slam-dunk winning lawsuit!

My understanding is that the "were they employed" thing is covered by background checks. I know equifax (experian? I always get them confused) have a product where they will reveal your past titles AND your salaries. It's a little wild and I don't like that, but the point is that I don't think you gain much info from "yes they worked here" from HR.

A reference is really intended as a statement of character IMO. "They worked here" from HR, who doesn't know you, is not that.

It's a data point, not a final or primary determinant.

Vast majority of corporate team members or leads are not allowed to say anything bad or much other than whether that person was employed or not.

Nevertheless :

1. If a person has a comprehensive long resume but cannot provide meaningful references, that poses a significant question as to why

2. A person will not typically say anything bad about their ex colleague or team members due to legal and policy constraints. Nevertheless if they stick to the "this person was employed here" and don't give even a perfunctory "oh Bob? Yeah he was a good guy. He was employed here from 2023 to 2025" even after some soft prompting, again, a data point.

Depends what you're looking for in an employee or colleague. If "history of not completely burning bridges to the ground " is relevant to you, references are "a" data point.

It kinda sucks though if you end up being a bad culture fit a couple times in a row. You end up being rejected on that basis alone. Forever. And there is nothing you can do about it, even of you are qualified for the jobs you apply for.

Mixed. I disagree because you can't get culture fit out of a few hours of interviews, so having people who worked with you can help a lot.

I primarily agree because some companies get way too haughty and try to ask for references in the job app. There's no way I'm giving contact info of my leadership to you to bother them (2 of which very carefully avoid posting their contact info on the internet) unless I'm dead sure I'm in consideration for a role. Certainly not before I can talk to a human.

I interviewed at Linkedin in 2020 or so - interview went great, team fit was great, all the interviews were great, the recruiter told me he was going to prepare an offer... then I never heard from them again.

4 years later, a recruiter messaged me saying that they found my name as a potential candidate and knew that I declined the offer, back in 2020, so they wanted to know if I wanted to re-interview. I told the recruiter I never rejected anything. She looked into it and apparently it was your exact same situation: recruiter left that day, a bunch of candidates got marked as "declined" shortly after.

To be fair if employees are being fired that abruptly with so little consideration to operational continuity it might be a worse red flag than a recruiter ghosting you.

This happened at my old company. My manager went away for a holiday and never came back. We never found out why, but it was a Finance company so people suddenly not coming in the next day was a thing.

This completely broke the interview pipeline, and in the disorder no one realised. The company got some bad reviews in that period for just stopping a bunch of processes mid-way.

>it was a Finance company so people suddenly not coming in the next day was a thing.

Oh, I'd love to know why this is a thing.

I did work for a mutual fund company for 18 months, one of those companies where the title Vice President simply meant nothing more than "employee" (although it was fun showing my business card to my friends and family, who were impressed by the title even though it had no meaning), but I didn't notice anything special about employee retention, probably because I was in a tech team.

I once had an interview loop where after the final round I didn't hear back from the recruiter point-of-contact for awhile. After 1.5 weeks, I sent an email following up: the recruiter replied "I was on vacation dammit, btw you didn't get the job."

I have participated in at least 3 rounds of vocational rehabilitation, and one of the major takeaways was writing thank-you notes after any interview.

A note could be a card or an email, but a thank-you note simply expresses gratitude for the interviewer’s time and attention.

And moreover, a followup will keep your name in their mind, for better or worse. Following up after the interview series may have been the trick to landing my “pandemic job” in May 2020. I phoned or emailed the recruiter, just to thank her, just to say hello, and you know what? She said “yeah actually we were gonna call you with a job offer” and the rest is history.

So, before you complain that someone ghosted you, please consider who’s ghosting whom!

I hear this advice given quite a bit, but another perspective: I have never been pleased to receive a thank you email from a candidate. I do not want to receive something in my inbox that does not require me to act. It's a micro-annoyance, and if it's a bad day, I might have grumpy thoughts about the candidate being a brownnoser.

Show up to the interview clothed, be pleasant and polite, show off your game, and leave it at that.

I wouldn't want to work for or with someone who can't even stand a thank you note.

Imagine being a recruiter, seeing someone genuinely interested in the position (or at least willing to put in the effort to make it seem that way), and getting annoyed rather than hyped. You in the wrong line of work, brother.

I presume the previous poster is one of many interviewers, not the recruiter.

As an interviewer myself, I get where they're coming from. My email is not shared with applicants, so finding it requires some stalking or at least digging me up on LinkedIn. By the time they reach out, I've already put in my notes, and any final decision is out of my hands. So while I'm not going to hold it against them, it's not a particularly useful move on the candidate's part either.

For your email perhaps it is hard to find. At many companies it is attached to the Teams/Zoom invitation

As an interviewer, you should be aware that there is a split on advice given on this topic. Half of the folks say to send an email, and half say not to. Several recruiters have told me that, all things being equal, a company will take the person who seems most interested in the job.

There's no consistent advice for anything related to interviewing or getting jobs.its a mess

The obvious solution is to just send half an email!

Dear, thank

Not quite in job interviews, but when I'm selling to a client, I just ask in the interview if it is okay, if I connect with them on LinkedIn. Some say yes. Others say no.

Should work in a job interview setting as well.

It also has the benefit of giving me a signal. Usually if the interview went well, the interviewer will happily agree to be connected. If not, you'll see either a refusal or subtle body language indicating discomfort with the connection. And you can then form your own conclusions about the probability of getting an offer before the firm gets back to you (or often ghosts you.)

Use every signal your prospect gives you.

Definitely agree, at a big company anyway there is nothing to be gained by sending these, or by any communication not directly related to the process. It doesn’t come across as genuine, it’s neutral to slightly annoying and has no impact on anything, it’s basically a chance at rubbing someone the wrong way with no upside.

> It doesn’t come across as genuine...

How can you determine if a thank you note is genuine or not if you don't read it in good faith?

One person might send a generic thank you that tells you nothing, and another might send a thoughtful message that in some specific way reiterates their interest and excitement in the job.

> ...and has no impact on anything...

Sure it does. I hired lots of people in my career and things like this helped me determine if the candidate was thoughtful, professional and interested. On multiple occasions, I hired people who didn't technically meet my ideal requirements but explained why they were interested in the role and gave me greater confidence that they were up for the challenge and worth taking a chance on.

Cynicism by default does not serve you well in any aspect of life.

You know why a thank you works? It puts them back in your inbox. It shows professionalism and often genuine desire for the position.

You sound like someone who most would absolutely dread to work with.

At NCC Group I once heard someone with hiring authority complain that an applicant had looked good, but never sent a thank you note for their interview. "What kind of person would do that?"

I was recently interviewing candidates for a senior software engineer in Boston. I did about 20 interviews and only got 1 follow up/thank you email. I didn't send rejection emails to candidates that didn't send a follow up.

This is probably bait but FYI it’s not normal to send thank you emails in much of the world following an interview so perhaps consider that not everyone thinks like you and it’s not a slight to receive no thank you emails. Where I live a thank you email would be seen as a strange way for someone to sneakily try to persuade you to hire them outside of the proper interview process. If you don’t get an email you may just be dealing with someone not from your culture.

You should consult for your god complex

I usually thank people in person after an interview. Why would I do that by email?

And if they inform me about the rejection in person, that's great. It's not getting any feedback at all that's impolite and frustrating, because it leaves you in the dark about what the status is. Is this something you need to wait for or care about? It teaches applicants not to care.

In 2017 I was talking to a recruiter who genuinely forgot about my application. As in I pinged them, things got moving again, and I actually got hired.

In 2021, I talked to a quantum startup and all indications were that the feedback was "overall extremely positive", and the final step would be talking to the CTO or CEO. For some reason HR could not get that meeting scheduled for two weeks, before telling me I didn't get the job. This seemed like a communication thing, but a few years later the whole company shut down, so I guess I dodged a bullet and/or they changed their mind about hiring.

Or maybe quantum didn't happen?

Or it did and didn't.

I assume you mean, “or it did and didn’t”, in which case, hats off to you.

I did and didn't.

Hats off and on to them

I am building an interviewing and hiring platform (https://coderba.se/) but I've also hired/interviewed and shaped hiring processes at several companies before. It's ridiculous how easy it is to account for such trivial edge cases, yet most people just... dont. A big part of it is that, in spite of frequent chest beating about how "hiring is [one of] the most important thing[s] we do", the actual process is half-assed at best in most places, an effect particularly amplified by the current massive oversupply of talent.

The chance of a single hire being a make it or break it for the the business is pretty much null, so a single recruiter not having continuity in the processes they were doing once they get fired isn't really something to optimize for.

I had a similar experience. In my case, they gave me a few dates to fly out and do some sort of final boss talent show interview. Then… nothing.

I got the sense it was some internal political drama but maybe the recruiter disappeared… that honestly didn’t occur to me, and up until that point it was a pretty awesome and interesting process.

I’m on google’s list of special people who qualify for an interview whenever I’m ready, no screen required. I think most “big tech” employees are. I get an email every 6 months or so from a new recruiter letting me know they took over from the previous one, who’s no longer with the company.

I was on that list for a while, but thankfully it was because of someone else with my name, and one time they dropped a hint about my work with compilers at Microsoft, and I asked around and figured out actually they didn't really want me, they just don't understand names aren't unique.

> Her last day at the company was the day she promised she would book phone screens

And the emails you sent didn't bounce after that?

> Ever since, I keep wondering how many ghostings happen because the person holding the strings disappears for some reason, and there's a lack of system to follow up on that.

This has happened to be more than once. At various points in time Microsoft has used external vendors for its recruiting/hiring pipeline (which, IMHO, is a bad idea, you want people with a vested interest in the company doing all of the recruiting and hiring...).

So yeah, working with a recruiter, wait awhile, nothing, message "oh sorry she left, but the company wants to go forward."

Ugh.

It wasn't any better when I was a hiring manager at Microsoft trying to hire people. :(

Flip side of this is I stopped giving honest feedback after I interviewed a candidate who, on paper, was a stretch for the role. They generally interviewed well but had obvious gaps in their knowledge from being self taught. At the end of the interview they asked me if I had any recommendations for what they could study up on, I emailed some suggested reading (popular tech blogs, probably something by Petzold as well) and got an angry letter back accusing me of being sexist and some other stuff.

>which, IMHO, is a bad idea, you want people with a vested interest in the company doing all of the recruiting and hiring

For engineers at a large software company perhaps. But if you were a distribution company that hires one developer per year, then it is hard to maintain the network required to get good candidates

Have you ever done the math on how much that cost you? I'm guessing at least $20M?

what's weird about that though is they must have had some system to track candidates that would have been turned over to somebody.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com