cliftonmckinney

HN contributions only amounted to about 5% of the total score. Mostly it was Github contributions (measured by number of forks and watchers and a couple other things) and Stack Overflow participation.

We made money from matching our job seeking users to companies. We contracted with companies to do this. If you go to the hiring? link at the top you can see some of that. Most of our sales outreach was direct though.

Yeah, finding the homepage should probably be easier to do from the blog. I normally try to link to the homepage in the first couple sentences of the post, but not always, and not in this case unfortunately.

Edit: and I agree we could have done more with marketing. We were new entrepreneurs at the outset of this, and did a lot of things that I would completely change now that I'm a bit more seasoned. Marketing would be one of those things.

Cofounder here. Since you guys are speculating, I thought I'd jump in and try to answer a few questions and help where I can.

tl:dr it's a really hard business because matching developers to companies who are willing to pay for your services to find those developers is extremely hard work. Mostly the companies have some issue that makes it hard for them to find people, which is why they hire you in the first place.

First off: mark242, you're right about some of what you say, but not all of it. The truth is that the "talent war" isn't really as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. The real problem is that there's a huge disconnect between what developers want and what companies want. To give one example, a lot of our really highly talented developers really only want to work remotely. For some, there are family obligations, and for others it's just preference. But most SV startups don't really want to hire remote workers. And the ones that do, well they honestly don't have nearly as hard a time finding people who want to work for them. And as such you're right, they don't really care to pay any company 20% of first year salary to do their recruiting for them.

What we'd hoped to accomplish, and fell short on in the end, was a way for developers with non-traditional backgrounds find gainful employment. In Silicon Valley, where I suspect you are, this really isn't that big of a deal. Every company out there is looking at Github before they're looking at, for instance, college degrees. But here in the middle of the country, this is still a huge problem. If I'm a developer without a CS degree or significant experience, it doesn't matter that I've been writing code since I was 8 years old. So, Open Source contributions were the first logical place for us to look for a more objective measure of ability. The system was far from perfect, but it was a start.

So who's paying 20%? Non-sexy companies, or large companies that can't really handle all of the recruiting work and would rather pay money than spend time, and companies that have something they're up against--maybe a bad location, or a specific need, or whatever. This isn't the case always, but it is often enough to make it a damn hard business.

And who among developers are looking for jobs? Folks with specific needs, or who are in weird locations, or who have something working against them, like a lack of experience or a desire to switch technologies or whatever.

So those two things don't link up too well. Developer Auction and other similar sites will probably figure that out soon enough. So if you're going to do recruiting for a company you're going to have to reach out to developers who fit, unsolicited, because those are the ones who match the positions you're hiring for. Only rarely will your existing pool of mostly misfits match up with your existing pool of misfit companies. And keep in mind I don't mean misfit in a derogatory fashion. I mean, literally, that they don't fit very well.

So that's what's hard, and we just didn't have enough time or traction for those two things to match up often enough for the business to be sustainable. Some others, like the ones I recommended, probably do, though I do wonder how long they'll keep it up. Some, I'm sure, will be making the same announcement we did very soon.

San Francisco is 1.85x what it costs to live in, say, Nashville, TN. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=salary+comparison+Nashv...

Wrote a relevant blog post about this issue not too long ago. The article states the obvious of course. Talent isn't evenly distributed, but it is distributed. What's most compelling for perhaps Valley and New York companies only, is the wide disparity with regard to compensation:

Two Silicon Valley startups raise $1M and they each have need for a great team. Team One is on site. They spend a lot of otherwise productive time attempting to hire great engineering talent away from other equally impressive startups in the area. They pay $150k per person (let's call it $200k fully loaded) for talented, but not phenomenal people. Team Two is fully distributed. They decide to hire the best, no matter where they are, and at $150k per person everyone outside of Silicon Valley gives them a look with much less effort on their part. They save time, they save on office space in SV, and, best of all, they build a team of truly phenomenal folks who are happy to be making $150k, because it's likely $50k higher than they were making at whatever job they had before they got recruited.

Assuming you can build a better team in the Valley is only relevant if you have a reasonable expectation that you'll find similarly talented folks at the same price no matter where you are. That is simply not the case.

More on the blog: http://blog.workforpie.com/2013/06/04/the-case-for-remote-wo...

Auto-delete all messages that contain the phrase "my client" and you'll eliminate 90% of spammy recruiter emails in my experience.

That's the goal, right? If the recruiter had an amazing, what you've always wanted kind of job for you, you'd probably want to hear about it. But if that were the case he'd take the time to find out what that opportunity looks like, and he'd probably just tell you the company instead of all the "my client" stuff.

Same is true for sales-type emails, I'd say. All too often, the mistake is to "sell" the reader in the initial email. That only works if you're selling something incredibly compelling and easy to understand. Most startups don't have that. The goal, then, is more to pique interest; to make the reader want to learn more.

I've learned this lesson first hand more than once, unfortunately. If you make the entire sales argument in an initial email, then you have no chance to drive the conversation. You're giving the reader an opportunity to make a 0 or 1 decision before you even have the chance to explain a bit of the gray areas. Don't do that, if you can help it.

Most companies seriously underestimate the level of exposure they have. We usually recommend applying inbound marketing techniques to your recruiting process to improve your exposure. A few tips:

1) Open source one or more useful projects. Smart people will use them, fork them, etc. 2) Have a referral program, and make sure it's easy to use. A lot of companies have a program that gives employees $1,000 or more if they refer a candidate, but not a lot of companies make the referral process an easy one. Build a landing page for each position. Include a little information about the company and the job. That way, employees have something to share on their social networks and via email. 3. If you're looking for awesome and nothing else will do, consider allowing remote work. 4. Set up a company page at Work for Pie (shameless plug) or Coderwall or similar. It'll help developers get to know your team and culture much better than a simple job description.

Good luck!

I've been playing around with it recently, among other options. I'd definitely say it's closer to the way I work, but not quite "it" yet. Two things I think might help:

1) Integration with something like Full Contact so that folks can get social data about prospects. Having that makes it easier to personalize outreach and stay up to date with what folks are doing.

2) Outreach tracks. For a long time I've wanted a CRM to have adjustable sales tracks. So the way that might work is there's an initial outreach, and then the next step changes based on what the outcome of that was. If I get no reply, then remind me to follow up in a week or so and let me add a template for that follow up. If I get a reply, then let me note what happened and then go down a different path to closing. If I get an objection, then let me choose from a list of objection options with a template that I've already developed for each of them.

I'm a single data point, so don't take it as gospel. I really do love the email integration. It's amazing to me that so many sales efforts rely on email these days, but that so few CRMs handle email with anything close to something that works. I think you guys get that right more than most other options.

Not as it relates to MOOCs. IIRC the stated business model of Udacity is related to helping graduates find jobs.

I think this is correct, for the most part. Call me a dirty capitalist, but I think that especially for problem no. 1 the solution probably needs to involve--in a significant way--those who have the most incentive to see it solved. Generally, the incentive for students comes from curiosity, desire to learn new things, and maybe the desire to broaden career options, but not really from "profit," at least in the short term.

But, the companies that have immediate need for a data scientist--those are the folks who have a vested interest in the problem being solved. The trick I think will come down to getting companies involved without having them mucking them up like most "corporate training" is these days.

I guess that's a bit of what's missing for many of the online options so far--a direct "if you do this this will happen" value proposition for the students. Right now it's all driven by our curiosity and a desire to learn, which is great and drives many of us to sign up, but sometimes doesn't trump all the "life" that gets in the way after the coursework gets tough.

A little feedback:

I think the real interesting answers won't necessarily come from the companies themselves. I think it's a good start, but much more interesting from my perspective is what employees with varying opinions--from glowing to not so glowing--might have to say. I think Glassdoor is close, but it's really wonky to use imo. An easier to use or niche version of Glassdoor would be cool.

Not completely fleshed out jemka, but we're working on this over at Work for Pie. https://workforpie.com/companies/gallery/

Free for companies to set up a page.

I think the most interesting bit of the Stripe article was that they did most of their hiring via referrals. That's really one of the very few ways you're going to be able to hire "people" rather than specifically to certain job descriptions. Their recruiting method matches their strategy. All too often companies will say "we hire people, not roles" but then post all their jobs on job boards where the specific role is well defined. :-/

We've been working to solve this problem for a long time at https://workforpie.com/.

I completely agree with everything OP says, but I'll tell you what the real problem is: time. This is especially true in early stage startups and consultancies, where oftentimes the founders are still building stuff 95% of the time.

Recruiters are easy (as are, by the way, the new wave of non-recruiting recruiters like Developer Auction). Pay the man his money, and get a candidate in return. The founder doesn't have to spend time communicating with candidates or really doing any of the stuff OP mentions. That's why a lot of companies still hire recruiters. (Some of the companies) don't care what happens before the viable candidate walks thru the door, they just care that he/she does. It's like buying an iPad. Most of us don't think about, and don't care to think about what it took for that iPad to make it to us. We just care that it did and that it works as advertised.

Recruiting: the most important thing most companies don't have time for...

There's absolutely a better way, and in the end it's less time-consuming than what most companies do now. But the up front work is harder and more time-consuming. Convincing someone who's time is worth more than his money to adopt the better way is a hard thing to do.

The am>ventures site is here: http://amventures.co/

We're really happy with the work they've done for us. For early stage startups, they're a great option.

Co-founder of Work for Pie (the other company mentioned in the article) here. I will say I'm glad that these guys expanded from their original, pretty elitist degree and/or experience requirements.

There are companies that do it right--like Github and Etsy--and there are companies that do it wrong. The big problem is that doing it right probably takes more time. Supporting the local developer ecosystem, presenting at conferences and meetups, mentoring others, open sourcing projects, writing blogs that help others, etc. are all great recruiting strategies (and just darn nice things to do overall), but they all take a lot of time (and none are guaranteed to bring you new employees).

I think the fact that these guys are successful tells me that a fair number of companies are saying "my time is more valuable than $xx." I'm not sure how I feel about that. I completely understand it--especially when you're a part of a super-small team--but I still kinda wish it didn't have to be that way. And fwiw I'm not sure how well cultural fit is addressed by this platform, but maybe the companies figure all that out in interviews.

I'm biased, but I think giving developers the chance to discover the one company (among as many options as possible) that fits them best is the way to really improve recruiting. That forces companies to actually be worth a damn--not just have deep pockets--to recruit successfully.

..and now for the shameless plug. It's free to set up a company page on Work for Pie, and you can post up to two jobs for free too. Tell our thousands of developers how awesome you are: https://workforpie.com/companies/join/

I think where the college and credentials bit is failing--for me at least--is the lack of differentiation between "learning to do" and "learning to think." I went to a liberal arts college and spent most of my four years learning to think. Liberal Arts are good for that kind of thing, and depending on your background (I'm not the product of highly educated parents) it can be extremely useful and a completely justified reason for going to college. One can learn to think elsewhere, but college is still a great place to do it.

As recently as ten years ago, it was impossible to learn to do outside of a formal training program, but today it's completely possible to learn to do almost anything via Youtube, iTunes, and the rest of the internet. And the problem is that today's university system--except in fairly rare cases--actually hinders learning to do. The world outside moves too fast for the educational bureaucracy to keep up. Formal education is valuable, but maybe more for learning to think than learning to do, at least in modern times.

The 'complete redesign' trend has been seen by some in the design community as a bit arrogant and impractical. My guess is that poster didn't want to be included in that crowd.

Pieworks is a new service we've recently announced. Our goal is to help great companies recruit in a way that's genuine. It's a relationship, not a transaction. Look forward to questions and discussion.

This is happening in Memphis (our hometown) in a few weeks. Would love to know who's coming to town!

I take issue with that last point. While it's true that good developers aren't currently unemployed--especially these days--that doesn't mean they're not looking for something new, especially if what you have to offer (better fit and something awesome to work on) is available to them.

I for one would be interested in reading your proposed next blog post. ;)

Perhaps the title should be: "how to hire a hacker, assuming that there are tons of them to choose from."

Your premise is that there's a compromise required. If I'm a Ruby shop, then ideally I'd want to hire someone who loves Ruby, loves what I'm doing, loves my team, and lives where I live. But I don't often get all four, so I should sacrifice the language preference for the fit stuff. This makes sense, but I'd take it a step further and say that oftentimes (at least in this day and age) you get one, maybe two of the four and the required compromise is much deeper. Of course if you plan for it (make training available, remote work possible, etc.) then things can still work out.

I think the post is missing a key element though. How do you find these people in the first place?

There are definitely good ones out there. And those that take the time to learn to write a little code have a much better chance of being on that list. We know a few good ones too. Few and far between, but clearly possible.

One thing I didn't mention in the post is that, in a lot of cases, the incentive system for recruiters isn't necessarily aligned with the best interests of the companies and developers they work with. Recruiters are a bit like sell side realtors. The incentive for them is to push a lot of product. So, as a sell side realtor, my financial incentive pushes me to accept the first offer that comes through, whether it's a low ball or not, and move along. Only rarely do I dismiss that financial incentive for the benefit of my client, because 6% of $300k isn't much different than 6% of $320k.

So, it's actually irrational for recruiters to spend a lot of time finding the perfect employee for their client, or the perfect job for their recruit, if it takes more time than normal.

Unless, of course, you take a longer term view. Longer term, highly successful placements mean that you get more clients and more high quality recruits. But, again, it's hard to think long term when we change careers so often.

Glad to know you're one of the good ones.

The rise of internal recruiting teams is definitely promising. We work with a lot of companies that are smaller and/or growing at a slower rate and therefore can't justify a full time equivalent for recruiting. They're hiring maybe three or four people a year. For those kinds of orgs I think "making it a core activity" is just as important, and perhaps more difficult because they can't justify full time help.

Good on you if you've figured out the formula for retaining employees that are potentially on their way out the door. I'll stand by my statement that it doesn't happen often. I'd love to read a blog post about how to do it successfully! :)

Can you also elaborate on how you find the companies that fit those criteria?

There have certainly been worse offenders in the annals of job posts on HN than Streak, but I see the point here (mostly).

However, job boards are classified ads, and oftentimes the controversial ones get the most eyeballs. Think about it from Streak's perspective: "okay, we're a young, relatively unknown company, and we're trying to hire the best engineers we can. Also, ideally, we want to screen for people who actually find our challenge interesting."

Through that lens it makes perfect sense that they call out an entrenched, better known enemy. It's controversial enough to be memorable--especially for people who aren't big fans of Salesforce (exactly the types they're looking for).

The problem is that those first few words is often all they have to get your attention. The forum's all wrong, and job posts in general are terrible places to tell people about your culture.

I'm just happy that folks have mostly weeded out the "rockstar" and "ninja" job posts. Those were god awful...

We (Work for Pie the company, not me as an individual) started tipping folks recently. It's as easy as setting up a github profile for your company and signing up.

Our aim is to tip folks who have built and/or contributed to software that we use. Our way of saying thanks. :)

Ha! Good point. Wanted to take the emphasis off of us for a bit, but I understand the confusion.

Work for Pie is a community for software developers--and especially for developers who contribute to open source software. Joining gets you two things: a portfolio, and a score. Portfolio puts the emphasis on open source work, and score is based on meaningful participation in dev-centric communities (right now Github, Bitbucket, Stack Overflow, and Hacker News with more coming).

In the future we'll be doing a couple things:

1) Making it easier for developers to connect with like-minded individuals

2) Making it easier for developers to discover great companies without the pressure that comes from working with outside recruiters or the frustration that comes from searching the job boards. We'll be sure to do a Show HN what that stuff is ready.

Thanks for asking! Feedback is welcome and encouraged cliff (at) workforpie.com