Hacker News Reader

Comment by Peroni | Hacker News Reader

You are interested in a job interview with them, if they're too

Best not to truncate "they are" in this instance.

Select anyone with whom you are interested in a job interview. It is anonymous and private; your connections will not see you are interested unless they are too.

I don't get it. How will they find out I'm interested? Surely there needs to be a separate system for employers to register interest in people who they would willingly interview? The current format suggests that they would have to also use your site and select ME as someone THEY want to be interviewed by which makes no sense.

How do I select people I would willingly interview? How will I ever find out if another user wants me to interview them?

So many questions.

View on HN

>>Best not to truncate "they are" in this instance.

Sorry to be pedantic, but as long as we're doing grammar feedback: it's called contracting or a contraction, not truncate.

You're absolutely right. I couldn't think for the life of me what the appropriate word was so truncate was the only suitable word I could think of.

>The current format suggests that they would have to also use your site and select ME as someone THEY want to be interviewed by which makes no sense.

How does this make no sense? I think the idea is to save both parties from having to express premature rejection to the other.

Thanks for the concept 'premature rejection'. Especially between some connections, premature rejection becomes a risk no one wants to take.

I'm a hiring manager. There are a number of connections on LinkedIn that I would happily interview if they expressed interest. There are also a small number of connections I would love to interview me for a role at their company. The current model does nothing to allow me to differentiate.

You are right in pointing out the asymmetric nature of job interviews, namely "You may want to work for this person" vs "You may want to hire this person".

In the current model we wanted to keep things simple and leave as much as possible to them to decide or know. With a check box, we may ask them to select exactly what they want with this particular person.

Do you think, for every selection, asking whether you want to hire or you want to work for a particular person is really necessary, or is it enough to leave this to them, of course with a certain risk of misunderstanding in some cases. I would be pleased to hear your opinion.

I certainly believe that being given the option would be a significant improvement. How you execute that appropriately is better answered by a UX expert which I'm definitely not!

Initially we implemented hiring and applying as the same action, assuming our users would implicitly know how they position each other. After a week of feedback, we now allow you to choose to select to hire or get hired by someone.

We appreciate your feedback.

Yes, one immediate and non-technical way to improve this is to smooth out the copy. Another example:

Start having job interviews

I would suggest editing this to "start getting job interviews." The verb is more active and immediate, making the user feel they are receiving a benefit from your service instead of an incidental.

It may sound like a quibble, but to me the landing page copy is just as important, if not more important, than the design elements.

Great feedback, thanks. It will help us improve the home/landing page. It has been 2 almost weeks, and we are trying to validate the idea and come up with a better version.

Thanks for the grammar feedback, the site just launched 2 weeks ago, hope to make everything better.

The matching is currently based on LinkedIn connections of yours. So, we hope Jobrupt to be used within some circles inside LinkedIn. If you have a match, we notify you through your email registered in your LinkedIn account. We don't particularly contact your selections, or connections.

If you have a match, we notify you through your email registered in your LinkedIn account.

That's the part I'm struggling to understand. How will I ever get a match?

Say I select Director A as someone I would be interested in being interviewed by. How would Director A ever find out? Surely Director A would need an "employer" account where they can select Potential Employee A as someone they would willingly interview?

That's part of the 'Robin_Message's points here on this thread and it is a valid concern. We want to focus on small circles inside employment network, where your Director and you end up being there independently. Yes, the chances appear to be low, but we don't have a time limit.

Just think you are running a Scala or Ruby development team, and regularly meet a lot of developers in conferences. You are a small group, and you are connected to each other. However you don't want to offer jobs explicitly. In such cases Jobrupt may help. It's our hope, and it is still an experiment.

No. I'm afraid you are missing the point entirely.

Let's use your example as context.

I am running a Scala or Ruby development team and regularly meet a lot of developers in conferences. I meet an amazing Scala developer at a conference but he seems happy in his current job and I don't want to plead with him to join our company.

Lets assume this amazing Scala developer subsequently signs up to your site and selects me as someone he would like to be interviewed by.

I will never, ever find out that he's interested.

Why? Using your current model, I, the hiring manager, would also have to select him as someone I want to be interviewed by.

The chances of this happening aren't slim, they are literally zero.

Hence my question on why you don't have a SEPARATE sign in for employers so that they can list people they would willingly interview.

You have potentially created an amazing tool but it's only 50% complete.

I finally got your point. It s a great idea indeed. Actually it was already part of the growth plan to target people with hiring powers. We were thinking of various ways to target people in hiring positions and get them here. Our options now include separate employer signups, thanks for the idea.

Why even that? If an employer is interested in any individual wouldn't they just reach out and see if the interest is mutual?

I think this execution is a fun one, but is it really all that needed?

It definitely does not target to be a mainstream tool, but there are certain cases where you may be reserved to act. In addition to personality and cultural attitudes, your current position and your relationships with the people with whom you are interested may hinder you to make the first move. You may simply want to keep it discreet.

Some example situations; you left your previous position and you want to come back, but are reserved to make the first move back to your previous boss. You are a well known programmer, and you are well connected to people, but you are reserved to make the first move. You want to hire your service provider, you want to hire your client, you want to hire a competitor etc. I accept that in majority of the cases employers and employers don't hesitate to make the first move, but I just try to contemplate some cases where Jobrupt may work. Finally this is just an experimental idea, and if it works for some people in some communities it will be worth the effort.

Right, but in all of those scenarios the potential employer has no need to hesitate. Why wouldn't they reach out to potential hires to begin with (defeating the purpose of this site)?

Again: really neat idea, and I think the execution is great too, but is it really needed?

Mass recruiters and hiring managers wouldn't hesitate, but individuals running business units may want to keep it discreet. I believe it is needed for some situations..Time will show. Thanks for your comments.

Best not to truncate "they are" in this instance.

Could you share why not? Is this just "feels better that way"?

English is my second language and maybe I should read more.

The emphasis in this particular sentence is on the word "they". Truncating it to "they're" removes that emphasis.

Oh, now I see. Thanks!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com