Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Show HN: I made an alternative platform for professional profiles (read.cv)
938 points by _andychung on Jan 4, 2021 | hide | past | favorite | 357 comments

Definitely beautiful and would love for something simple and clean to eat LinkedIn's lunch.

I don't have much to add in addition to everyone else except this: I am really disturbed by the common meme of faces-inside-circles. Why do we need faces? It just distracts from the content. I love the idea of being able to link former colleagues together - that's neat - but I'm very anti-face and there are any number of ways to do it that does not involve people's pictures.

Edit: Wow this got a lot of upvotes. So, I'll continue for a sec: There is so, so much conscious and unconscious judgment and game playing with pictures, I don't even know where to start. Let's leave this to be simple, clean and beautiful without the faces.

This is really tough - humans are hardwired to form connections and remember people by recognizing faces. This, of course, is also exactly the problem, in that it allows for bias or prejudice of many different types to influence our judgements.

I think I agree with you that the downsides and inherent unfairness of the genetic attractiveness lottery outweigh the upsides of attaching a name to a face. It's an empirical question then whether this works for users.

With real names, faces are just one google search away for most people (and we could debate further what would it mean if a face wasn't found).

Functionally the website would be a wasteland of white sameness without portraits, no way around that I think.

I'm not entirely convinced this service solves the linkedin pitfall of mingling jumphoppers racking up impressive paper stats and polluting the signal.

You can’t really stop people from finding your face online if it’s on social media, but you can present the information so that you’d first read the text and then see a photo.

Move the photo on the profile to the bottom of it, and make it optional.

> With real names, faces are just one google search away for most people

> You can’t really stop people from finding your face online if it’s on social media

Hey, some of us worked pretty hard for this to not be true, so at the very least the photo should be optional. I’m blessed with a common first and last name and outside of my HN username I am pretty un-Googlable. Someone very motivated could probably find an old photo of me or two but it’s not universally true that everyone’s photo is a simple search away.

Others aren't exactly common, but I spent a good bit of time a while back removing my own information from the public internet. It's not easy removing yourself from all the Spokeo clones, but most of them have some way to do so, or at least remove the information from the public.

I agree - like only show a persons face AFTER you’ve connected somehow (I agree we’re hardwired to recognize faces - but I don’t want to try to recognize all the people as I’m browsing etc. - but when they become part of my Rolodex, then I wanna recognize their faces)

> With real names, faces are just one google search away for most people (and we could debate further what would it mean if a face wasn't found).

But it becomes an added hassle for those people, thus making it UX hostile for stalkers. Who is actually going to Google each and every other name on somebody else's collaborator list? Some determined stalkers I guess, but they are not going to be deterred anyways.

On the point of faces not being found, as a counterexample, some of my former MDs did not put pics in their LinkedIn. Yet people in the industry knew them by name, even if they weren't rockstar investors or something. Having heard someone's name from other sources such as word of mouth or from newspaper articles is a much better signal than using names to recognize them.

> With real names

Most people reviewing CVs don't need to see the real names. It'd be great to have a CV service that could render the CV either with or with out them.

Also, maybe I'm the only one, but I'm starting to experience a bit of 'mindfulness' fatigue. Seems like it's mindlessly being added to everything regardless of whether it makes any sense or not, so I dislike 'Mindful professional profiles' as a subhead.

Wasteland of white sameness? That's a funny way of saying simple and uncluttered.

> mingling jumphoppers racking up impressive paper stats

What does this mean?

Social media obsessed people who are great at clicking buttons and getting followers but add no value to the network. They only fill up a feed with noise.

what did I just read

mask the photo and the name. use regional locale detection and user choice to make fake names for everyone, use GAN to create fake profile pictures.

> regional locale detection and user choice to make fake names

Presumably you're talking about locale detection of the hiring company/reviewer rather than locale detection of the CV submitter.

I really like the idea, although practically it's probably not a good one in small companies where people are likely to actually work with the person whose CV they're reviewing.

I would say stick to placeholders that are obviously placeholders in order to avoid confusion. And obviously there are some people who do need to see the real names, so give them a clear deanonymise step.

We should do away with names on applications as well. Names can tell me about the gender and often the ethnicity of the applicant, which are both also ripe for discriminating against. With an online application, we can just replace the applicant's name with an ID number and associate the two in some database that the employer doesn't see until the applicant is hired.

Actually, now with remote work, even after the applicant is hired, we still never have to see or hear them at all! We can just keep referring to them as Employee #1672378623, use a randomly-generated avatar for our Zoom meetings, and filter everyone's voice through voice-changer software. Bias-be-gone!

> "never have to see or hear them at all!"

Not sure if you're joking, but IMO this is throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I like the idea of hiding details from the hiring filter and selection process that may contribute to bias, but never seeing or hearing the people I'm working with!? Sounds truly terrible.

Also, unless your voice changer actually selects/changes the words/pronunciation of the speaker, it will still be easy to identify details about them.

Accent, word-choice (soda vs pop), urban fast-talk, rural drawl all can be picked up even with a distorted voice.

I couldn’t initially tell if your second paragraph was meant sarcastically or not.

I also want to do away with discrimination. But people’s faces and voices express emotion, character, and warmth

Your utopia sounds absolutely horrible.

I met my wife at work, she is a different ethnicity and culture than me.

Nobody is sarcarstic on the internet, ever.

That would eliminate bias, but also totally de-humanize work. People are shitty to each other sometimes, but is it worth throwing out all human connection to eliminate a subset of undesirable behaviors?

I think there's definitely benefits to making open application positions more anonymous, but purely anonymous employment sounds terrible. You can already kinda get that with some outsourcing firms, and it's only useful for a very limited set of tasks.

Sounds like how Illuminati meetings are depicted.

You won't hear objections from me.

Yes, this is how we run them ... erm, I mean, what?

Around ten direct replies to your post and I still don't feel like the reason why pictures on CVs is a bad idea has been explained explicitly.

I'm in the UK, where race, age, gender, religion, disability are among protected characteristics. As such, that information, should it be included, is often either stripped from the CV automatically or the CV discarded entirely to obviate the risk of being accused of discrimination.

You realise that someones race, age, gender, disability etc are all easily inferred as soon as you meet someone in person?

It doesn't matter what you do here, if someone wants to reject someone based on gender, race, etc, they can do so easily and just say they weren't good enough. This is the ultimate elephant in room with hiring and it's always been there and always will be unless we somehow do hiring while never talking to someone or seeing them or knowing their real-name.

Even if it wasn't expressly forbidden under law, no one was ever rejecting someone from a job "because they are black/white/female/etc/etc/", that's always been obviously wrong, but it's easy enough to simply say "They're not a culture fit." or "Not experienced enough" or "Didn't answer the technical questions well enough."

I don't think banning people's faces on resumes or CVs would fix anything, the only thing that would "fix" this is changing our implicit and unconscious biases from childhood onwards, i.e. a major change to our teaching culture, and across all the media, TV, movies, books etc.

Ten minutes ago I agreed. There is bias to be fixed, but perhaps this is not the place to do so. But then, do you really need to know their name and gender _before_ the interview? I think there is an argument here for obscuring the face and other PII from the resume and letting people clear the initial screen bias free. It of course won't cure all or the most severe forms of discrimination, but it might reduce the subconcious biases that we all have. There's certainly a level of fuzziness here, but PII seems a reasonable line to draw for the in / out.

But this is not about eradicating all opportunities for bias, it is about reducing them. Making e.g. the filtering of resumes blind to race and gender would likely improve the situation, even if e.g. the interview still provides opportunity for biases to creep in.

But gender can often be derived by first name...

And ethnicity by last name, age by looking at the education section of the resume, etc.

People’s names can also be used to racially discriminate.

I mean no one's made an argument why it shouldn't be _optional_ if it already isn't either, as well as people are confusing the context of HR/Hiring Manager's shifting through resumes and traversing their own social graph on LinkedIn whether by search or connections list.

This site could even, when it gets up to supporting some social graph, separate the two views, HR is using bookmarks/folder organization/some other means of solving that problem anyway so "photos key to memory" is irrelevant

> I mean no one's made an argument why it shouldn't be _optional_ if it already isn't either,

I'll give you an argument against optional headshots: Adverse selection.

Given the advantages and disadvantage of having a headshot, most of the folks omitting them will have good reason to do so. Which means that those who don't have a headshot will be disadvantaged further.

IOW, not having a headshot signals one of three things: "I care about my privacy more than most people", "I couldn't be bothered to include a headshot", or "I am a member of a group that experiences prejudice based on superficial characteristics, such as weight or race, and wish to avoid this". There is a long tail of possible reasons and variations on these, for example the privacy one could actually be more along the lines of "I am hiding from my violent ex", but you get the drift.

None of these possible reasons are ones that give a reader warm fuzzy feelings. If the profile owner is very lucky, the reader will treat the absence of a headshot as largely irrelevant metadata, but that's the best case scenario: one of merely avoiding negative associations. There is no actual upside (the one exception I can come up with is an employer actually looking for candidates who are fanatical about their privacy for some reason, perhaps for security-related positions).

At least when you include a headshot you are only going to get hit with the actual relevant prejudice (which is a social filter that can be useful to you), rather than a stew of prejudices attached to all the imagined or assumed reasons for the image's absence, none of them consciously or coherently articulated.

> There is no actual upside

...unless the "I would experience prejudice" reason is correct.

That's the absence of a downside, which isn't quite the same thing. There is practically no scenario where not having a headshot gives you an advantage over those who have headshots.

They're definitely overused in a lot of designs. They can be useful to portray some information at a glance in some data-heavy designs, but I don't find them helpful here -- I find them distracting.

Comparison CV with/without faces: https://i.imgur.com/u6FVLqr.png

i don't even get what the faces should indicate? former coworkers? people that the person was managing?

The best intent I can think of is showing 1) team sizes, and/or 2) potentially-recognizable faces that a recruiter might interpret as "oh, s/he worked with someone I know is good at X".

But both are likely wishful thinking: I'm sure it's just a list of faces of other users who've put that company/product on their own CV on that particular site, which 1) is an incomplete and unverified potential-subset of people (and therefore not a good representation of team sizes), and 2) hugely unlikely for it to ever be relevant to a recruiter (because how likely is it for your audience to recognize effectively-random faces?).

But yeah, could just as well be people they managed, or people from that company, or people who endorsed them for their specific work in that role, etc. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Distracting for sure.

It's also useless to the vast majority of readers, but since it is useful to some, a better option would be to have "X connections" (or "X colleagues") note that expands into a list on click. Color it gray, right-align and you now have a secondary info for those who need it, but out of the way for those who don't.

One could even go with a series of dots (or other visualisation), preferably in a neutral colour, that can be expanded to include faces, so you still get some visual indication of team/network size.

As is, it definitely just is visual clutter.

I agree with what you've said. I like the site and I think it's very nice, but I dislike headshots. https://twostepsforward.co/2015/10/on-web-authorship-trends/

Not a linkedin fan and I like the idea of focusing on what people use / want and not on what they don't.

That said, I suspect you underestimate the importance of pictures in terms of memory building and many other networking steps.

yet unless you were an actor resumes didn't have pictures attached for well forever.

I actually always made the name part big if I could - not to remember it but for the visual sort of like a face.

Note: I've also seen that for minority / female hiring, a face can really jump your resume up as it makes clear you may help add some diversity to a team.

But you handed them in, in person, and had an in person interview.

If anything, a picture is a loss of historically available visual data on a hire.

> But you handed them in, in person

I have done that exactly once, at a college recruiting event in 2002, and the person who took it and gave me the pre-screen interview never saw me again until after I was hired.

> and had an in person interview

Are you under the impression this has gone away?

For the privileged of this board, yes.

Tech jobs are all remote, all the time now.

You would mail in your CV, and the HM wouldn't be the one receiving them if you did hand them in.

I’m not sure how this plays out, but I know of one company that has an HR policy, stating that résumés that come in with photos or images of the applicants are to be immediately rejected.

I was told it was because they want to avoid bias charges.

Discard just the photo or the résumé entirely?

If the latter - do they acknowledge the irony?

The latter.

And what is this "irony" of which you speak?

The irony of attempting to avoid bias, by using "has photo" bias.

NM. It was a joke.

Yeah, it is whacky, but most HR departments are run by lawyers, these days, and lawyers have a strange set of rules.

Damn, I figured it could have been. :)

LinkedIn is unusable without faces. It's often the only way to know that you found the person you were searching for.

Perhaps this site doesn't need that functionality though.

If you look at it as a tool for recruiters, you won't be searching for specific people. You'll be searching for attributes/skills you're looking for, and then get a list.

If you're an individual applying for a job, you'd link to your profile, so the recruiter who receives your application won't need to search.

If you're connecting with someone you know personally, then you should already have enough information at hand in order to know you have the right person based on their listed work experience.

The only time you might search is when you're doing professional networking and only have a name. But you usually have some other piece of info, like the company they work for, and possibly their broad job function or title. 99% of the time that should be enough to disambiguate people with the same name. And if all you have is a name, maybe you haven't really "networked" with them enough to warrant a connection?

>If you're connecting with someone you know personally, then you should already have enough information at hand in order to know you have the right person based on their listed work experience.

But the point isn't to connect to those people. They're a phone call/e-mail away. It's to connect with and maintain the connection to the randos that you briefly meet.

maybe you see portraits of connections, but something else for those who've yet to connect. Or maybe portraits if it appears that you likely know the person? Similarly, maybe you can search by name or know the names of those you are connected to, but, by default, you don't get a pic or a name. Hmmmm.

The picture still helps to disambiguate which of the three John Smiths that went to University of Foobar was the one that you met at the mixer yesterday.

Yeah, I'm a fan of anyting to replace LinkedIn, but if your site requires a picture that I'm not going to sign up. I don't particularly mind if you make it available for people who want to do that, but it's a hard pass for me.

This site does not require a picture. I tried it.


In the view of replies posted, I think profile pics (hereafter avatars) in colleague section are fine to have but dIefinitely not a necessity.

IMHO, here is an optimal solution:

Couldn't there be a two way option: whether i want to share my avatar in the circle, and if i want to look at other avatars?

It would be pretty effective.Lets say, I'm not interested in avatar of your colleagues, so i can turn them off or they would be in a drop down list. And say if I don't want you to see my avatar in colleagues section/list, I can turn it off from my side. So, you would only see a default avatar associated with my profile.

I'm of relatively strong opinion.. but why just not have faces-in-circles anywhere? It would feel so liberating from all the social network gimmicks out there. To me it would then feel so real and down for business, rather than have a whole status/appearance signaling sub game.

What if the photo is optional and displayed at the bottom? Showing a practically mandated photo first puts a lot of unconscious biases in your head.

This is a relatively new trend, and probably has something with social media to do.

Yeah faces-in-circles is another one of many design tropes and fads that will soon be so dated, or look like lame Facebook knock off

I absolutely agree that faces should not be an available option.

I agree about the faces but I’ll go further - even if it were a list of names, it’s a distraction. My professional profile is about me. I can mention partners and collaborators in my position/project descriptions. You can drill down to find out who my colleagues are. But nobody has ever wished LinkedIn had a MySpace-style top eight.

European tech recruiter here (again).

If I want to discriminate against you, I will anyway do so latest during the onsite.

I often have to skim through 200 CVs in a day and do >10 calls. I find it very convenient to have a face attached to the CV, because it helps me remember the person.

People hire people and people have faces.

I understand why people feel it is a burden to make and put a photo on the CV but I see so much updside also for candidates that I always recommend to add a photo. Here in Europe it's not forbidden but actually common. If you don't do it, you're the weirdo and your profile might get forgotten/ignored. Why risk this? I made a video to explain this once and not have to tell this to people again and again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELX85HAhHew

> If I want to discriminate against you, I will anyway do so latest during the onsite.

It is different. Many people want to maintain their image out of the public internet. I would never use a service that forces me to show my face to the public (not that there's anything wrong with my face, I just want it that way).

Usually, the firms require a PDF CV, so it is a private document shared between you and them, and it gets deleted after some weeks.

You found the hot-button topic...

If it was just a CV repository, I would be quite comfortable with this approach. Some regions have a social mandate to include photos on CVs and it bothers me quite a bit. Where I live Marital status / number of children is also common which I really don't understand.

Because this is set up as a web of professional landing pages though, part of the system is discovering people that you may know or finding people that you're looking for (and not just getting a link from someone to their CV).

I'd love an option to turn it off site-wide though, that could be a nice feature if you prefer to more-dissociate your connections from their physical selves.

It's actually the norm in some parts of the world to have pictures on resumes

True, but I think there's a strong case to be made that it shouldn't be. It (further) opens the door to subtle biases on the grounds of ethnicity, age, and attractiveness, and has no obvious upside.

I do agree with you, I'm part of a visible minority, but some may argue that if the company have already a toxic environment I'd rather be off. This is especially true for small companies that media don't care about.

What do they use the picture for when they get them?

I don't know maybe someone from europe can answer ... I was just point it out that north america is not the world.

Without forced connections, how do you prevent people from tagging others in their profile without permission?

all the people standing up for faces are attractive, i myself like my face on a resume only because ive seen in the past how managers sort resumes, most of the time the face pics go to the top.

I just put an avatar that's not my face.

but what if my face is quite pretty and I want to share its outlook in some circle?

Might I suggest something more appropriate where other users are looking for it like Insta/FB/etc. Maybe if you're so special, try looking for an agent and get on a billboard on the side of the highway so that I can show you my improvemnts with a can of spray paint

I'm translating this as "don't you dare to joke with me"

You'd be incorrect in that translation.

All else being equal, isn't attractiveness also a marketable asset in most if not all industries?

How does being pretty make me a better, or even more marketable programmer or sysadmin? I'm not user-facing, and interaction is mostly done by textual messages.

It may not. But where it is a marketable asset, is it somehow wrong to trade on that fact?

I started read.cv when transitioning from full time to freelance design in July. I wanted an easy to update 'about me' page to link from my website and bio – something simpler than LinkedIn and more dynamic than a PDF.

Design wise I focused on legibility and tried to give projects/side projects equal weight to things like education and work experience. A few unique features: tagging collaborators in your experiences, status updates, and print optimized profiles.

It took me around three months (Sept to November) to get it out the door, and I've been working on making improvements since. Open to any questions or feedback!

> Design wise I focused on legibility and tried to give projects/side projects equal weight to things like education and work experience. A few unique features: tagging collaborators in your experiences, status updates, and print optimized profiles.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I think your definition of legibility is maybe a bit off, the font is too small to be considered legible by any accessibility standard. I have 20/20 vision but I struggle to read some of it. The color contrast is also failing in some cases, and since the font is so small and thin, the contrast needs to be increased above what color contrast would suggest.

Also, when I wanted to check the size of the font (which is set at 14px but that seems equivalent to 11-12px for the common fonts like Arial) I realized I can't actually select any of the text, which I think might be important a website like this. You are creating some mask with a different div that might be blocking the clicks. You can create a mask like that with simpler html and css that won't have a problem with clicks.

Otherwise it's a nice project and it looks like you got a good traction already. I hope this helps.

Right, so I read a bit further and saw a comment about the view example button, which took me to the proper cv. So my comment isn't completely accurate, haha.

1. As others have pointed out, the default font size is way, way too small. Not readable on a phone, barely on a computer monitor.

2. Please try your site on an oldish iPhone, like an iPhone 7, in landscape mode. You give about 2cm of space for the scrolling content. The problem seems to be keeping the "View example" button anchored on the bottom of the screen at all times, with a large fixed border around the button. This leaves no room for the actual content. When you actually click "View example," the resulting page renders fine on a landscape iPhone.

3. Please try your site on a large 27" monitor in full screen mode. Your content's width is a fixed number of pixels and you end up rendered on a tiny sliver (about 1/5) centered horizontally on the screen. Please don't be one of those sites that has huge horizontal whitespace margins (I'm looking at you, John Gruber). It's a terrible web trope. Consider using the whole width of the browser window, or most of it.

4. I also agree that headshot photos should not be part of this product. Dare to be actually different from LinkedIn.

Please post here again after some iteration, this thing has promise.

Hey Andy, good job! The app looks really clean and nice to navigate through.

I just wanted to share a couple of "views" that I created to express my career in a different way. I'm sharing just for your inspiration. (content in Portuguese, but I bet you can auto translate it)

Experience view; years of experience per theme/subject. https://rodolphoarruda.pro.br/experiencia/

Projects & cultural context in chronological order (notice the flags) https://rodolphoarruda.pro.br/eu/lista-de-projetos/

I decided to make those views available because I stopped believing the standard CV/LinkedIn format for presenting myself and my career.

Cheers and keep up the great work!

Cool this is super helpful, thank you!

How was the experience with setting up a Cape Verde business entity for the domain? Any issues or regrets?

I tried doing it through 101domain.com and couldn't because I didn't have a registered business in Cape Verde. I tried again using Marcaria.com and they handled the registration process and I haven't had any issues so far.

Are you sure about that? Appears to me that you need a registered trademark in Cape Verde, which Marcaria also has a process for (costs a lot and takes up to a year). I'm fairly certain your domain will expire within three months after purchase without a valid trademark certificate.

I guess you simply purchase the domain. Just like bit.ly which, as far as I know, doesn't have an entity in Libya.

Different domain locations have different rules. For example, if you want to get a .sg domain, you need a Singapore entity. If you want a .aero domain, you need to show you're an aerospace business to the registrar.

Love it. I see you're not running ads. What's your plan for monetization?

I would love to be able to embed the CV into a personal page so that it could link to the full profile on your site. I could picture it being the perfect link between a social network and private content.

Hey Andy, I never received the verification email. je at h4x.club

Check your junk. That is where mine ended up.

Welp, sorry about that. Wonder if the .cv tld makes has anything to do with this...

If this does grow, it might be worth getting another domain just for email purposes such as "read-cv-email.com".

What are you using for your email backend?

The authentication emails are sent by Firebase.

Ha, thanks. Went past spam and straight to trash for some reason. First time I've seen that from a signup.

Hey looks great! What stack have you used? In particularly how did you develop such clean UI?

I just want to say this is a fantastic idea, and as another commenter said, it would be great to eat linkedin's lunch.

My only feedback I guess would be to make same wish I make about just about any project these days, which is compatibility with activitypub. Do you have thoughts on the promise of a project like this to work on that kind of protocol?

Well done. I'm going to use it.

This is a good start, but I'm not a huge fan of this the way it is now.

First, the font is tiny for my old eyes. Not all of us, especially hiring managers, are still in their 20s and can read these tiny fonts. I measured it with a ruler and the text is 1mm tall. Also, the font is gray on white, which is pretty but hard to read. In contrast, Linkedin is three times bigger and black on white, much easier to read.

Second, after looking at the example, I have almost no idea what you've done. All I see are job titles. I don't see any accomplishments or even job duties. It looks like I could add those things when I create my own profile, but having them missing on the example isn't a good look.

Third, the face circles. I see face circles under each job, but they aren't clickable nor are there tooltips. I have no idea what those are. I assume they're other people who worked at the same place? Maybe connections of yours who have worked at the same place? That's a cool idea, but it needs to be more discoverable. At the very least a tooltip would be good.

Overall, when I'm looking at a professional profile, I'm usually doing it because I want to hire or work with someone. The main information I want to know is 1) Do we have anyone in common I can ask about you? 2) What did you accomplish at your previous workplaces or otherwise? 3) Have you worked anywhere that I recognize and when, so I can ask my other friends who worked there if they know you?

The face circles accomplish #1, so that's great. #2 looks possible, but the design seems to minimize the accomplishments, as opposed to Linkedin which sort of puts it in your face. And #3 seems to be covered but again the design minimizes the information I want most.

I would say a good place to start would be asking yourself, "Why does Linkedin look the way it does?". A lot of their design comes from customer feedback, and their main customers are recruiters and hiring managers. Steal their good stuff and leave their dark patterns behind.

In addition to being tiny, the font color used for the text is a light gray that just hurts my 40 year old eyes. As a hiring manager, I'd pass this and just read a PDF or LinkedIn.

Click "View example" and 1, 2, and 3 will go away.

2 definitely doesn't.

These are fantastic criticisms. Almost exactly what I was thinking verbatim.

Back in 1960's, my dad worked as a draftsman. His work was impeccable. But once in a while, he got told, pretty harshly that this is a piece of shit. And he had to work 15 hours to fix a mistake. No, I am not talking about a typo which can be marked with a white marker. Hard-to-objectively-evaluate things like "Dimensions are just not as readable as they can be. You could arrange them this way, look. It's better." He told me to face criticisms, the harsher it is, the more passionate the criticizer is. Find out why they're passionately criticizing it.

I feel like criticisms on HN, Product Hunt, r/photography, r/design, etc. - we are too soft to not offend people.

I personally would want to be criticized as harshly as possible. I'd like to face reality in all its glory without drinking the soft-mannerism bs. If the design is shit, say it. If its great, praise it. Tell people why its great. Be honest why it sucks.

It's hard but if I am really interested in improving my skills, I don't want to be given lipservice. It is worse than not seeking feedback because it leads to self-delusion. It goes the other way too, don't be afraid to praise something passionately if you resonate with it and explain the reasons.

This is the society's mechanism for improvement and filtering out noise. If we don't do this, society becomes noisy and people who are really good at stuff are drowned in the noise.

> Find out why they're passionately criticizing it.

Sometimes this is just "because they're an arsehole" and the criticism is garbage.

> people who are really good at stuff are drowned in the noise

Or people who could be really good at stuff get disheartened by the harsh criticism and we as a society lose out.

> Sometimes this is just "because they're an arsehole" and the criticism is garbage

It’s pretty trivial to tell who is genuinely passionate and who is an asshole. Especially if you already know them personally.

> Or people who could be really good at stuff get disheartened by the harsh criticism and we as a society lose out.

Taking offense from an asshole, not being able to ignore them, all these traits are part of being successful. We can afford to lose a few people because they took offense to anything and everything. Maybe it’s different for minors and young adults. I’m addressing adults.

You could just as easily say that people who respond well to unilateral and energetic feedback are not motivated and society loses out without harsh criticism. It's hard to quantify these things and that means every position is at least a little reasonable.

I'd want society to side with truth over falsehood when either are not easily quantifiable.

Its always to the advantage of the entrepreneur who can at once be passionate about their work and yet also take criticism in stride, turning it into the kind of useful feedback you describe. That being said, we all know constructive criticism will be likely uptaken, so its also on us (as a community) to foster it if we want the best outcomes all around. Though in general I agree, and have found this is the hardest part of both evaluating friend's works, and also getting friends to evaluate yours. I always feel the need to say "Please, don't be nice. I'm not looking for handouts. I don't want to spend time on this if no one is going to like it."

Most of the content disappears when viewed in Safari's Reader View.

> Steal their good stuff and leave their dark patterns behind.

Their dark patterns make them money. That said, at this point, a LinkedIn competitor would look nothing like it...

Curious, what do you think a LinkedIn competitor would it look like?

I'm not qualified to answer that. Plus, I'm not sure I've seen it (obvious LinkedIn competition) yet, but there are shades of things that might upend the recruitment industry resulting in LinkedIn's cash cow taking a hit: Lambda School, Scaler Academy, EightFold.ai, Upwork/Fiverr, Creator economy etc

For what it's worth, you're absolutely qualified to write an HN comment in response to that question, the stakes are low.

I don't think it's a given that LinkedIn's dark patterns actually earn it money, though they certainly would appear to if you're a middle manager and your KPIs react positively.

I think the font thing might be a failure in displaying properly rather than an intentional choice. It's no smaller than the font here on HN or anywhere else for me.

I don’t understand the font feedback... can’t you just increase the font size? (The design is responsive to it).

Yes, that is an option, but should the default be so difficult to read especially for a CV?

I thought it was fine. But sure “make the font bigger”

Pinch to zoom doesn't work, and I can't find another option to increase the font size. This is on mobile. Are you by chance on pc?

No. Pinch to zoom works fine. PC zoom text works fine.

Hence my comment :/

> the text is 1mm tall.

That's relative.. But maybe it was as a joke. Because it's funny to imagine someone with a ruler measuring their screen ^^

> I would say a good place to start would be asking yourself, "Why does Linkedin look the way it does?".

I don't like this trope personally. It works for linkedIn because it was what Monster and other sites were not.

If its to be different, embrace it, listen to customers as you say. Don't just take what's already been done with a slight knock off feel.

As for the site itself and concept its nice and super clean, definitely fits into a lot of designers/developers ideals. Recruiters will want the analytic data but doesnt seem thats the market.

An exportable html/pdf page of your profile would be nice to give users too. Just because it gives ossum designers and whoever to extend on the clean template for themselves.

I use 1mm quite a lot, if I want to hide legalese from interested eyes, to be able to state afterwards, that everything was written on the page …

Tech recruiter here.


+ Very beautifully designed project

+ Super readability

Big, easy to fix negative:

Force people to add months to the years! You only asks the year when someone started in "Work Experience". If I read "2012-2013" I can't tell if someone has been at a place ~12 months or ~1 month. This information is very important.

Also, please calculate the durations to allow readers to grasp tenure faster. Sometimes people need to skim through 200 CVs per day, so every inch of improvement is a big deal. Check how Linkedin does it: "May 2012 - June 2012, 1 year 1 month"

Here a video where I improve some CVs, maybe that helps to make the product better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haQ4rtEjhJQ

> + Super readability

I disagree; it uses a fraction of the available screen size (optimized for mobile?), the font is small, and worse, it's grey-on-white; the contrast is too low.

I also did a bamboozle; turns out the profile on the linked page here is not actually the demo, but just an image / screenshot on a landing page. Didn't really clock that it was a landing page; maybe link directly to the example and update the landing page to not start with a product screenshot, but with the marketing blurb instead (Disclaimer: I'm not a designer, but I've seen other product landing pages that use large screenshots to highlight segments of the product along with short descriptions of the feature)

> I disagree; it uses a fraction of the available screen size (optimized for mobile?), the font is small, and worse, it's grey-on-white; the contrast is too low.

Agree. it's very hard to read. contrast is too low,. font is too small.

Now that you say it, I'd also wish for bigger font and more contrast.

> If I read "2012-2013" I can't tell if someone has been at a place ~12 months or ~1 month.

Or even 24 months...

> Force people

My god.

Even on LinkedIn it is optional.

I was out of work for a year and a half for personal reasons, and I conceal that fact from clueless tech recruiters by having my previous place "2013-2016" and my next as "2017-now". As soon as service "forces people" to fill their form as "tech recruiters" designed, they can just go south.

At an interview in 2020 I was asked:

"Can you explain the gap in your work history from May 1997 to March 1998?"

My answer:

"You're asking about a gap more than 20 years ago? I just didn't work for a bit, that's all."

If I were a recruiter, I would find the fact that you were trying to hide a year and a half much more sketchy than just seeing that you were "out of work" for that period...

I understand your sentiment but you are missing the point. When recruiters of any sort are going through thousands of CV's, they will filter on anything that helps them find candidates more likely to match a job. Regularly out of work because they are bad at a job, regularly out of work because of a one time issue (family death, illness) look exactly the same when filtering for work gaps, but only one of those is a meaningful signal. But its sufficiently uncommon that you may not lose many quality candidates by doing it. This is what bias looks like, and how it is propagated as well. Desigining a system that may be used by thousands of recruiters has to make decisions on these tricky points, and thoughtfully design around them.

Recruiters don't seem to get to the conclusion that I'm "trying to hide a year and a half" because fwiw it can be a month, or just a change of jobs on Jan 01.

Some recruiters look for red flags in order to dismiss a CV. Year out of work could be such a flag. My job is to hide that red flag. Once being interviewed, I will provide the details if asked.

I just checked: On Linkedin it is indeed optional but they made it look like they force you (https://imgur.com/a/0wdI3Wy)

I almost always see the dates with a month.

CVs are primarily consumed by people who hire people, why wouldn't you listen to what they say?

If you had to be out of work for a year and a half for personal reasons, just put it there. Trying to conceal stuff can work, but might not; hence, isn't the most conservative idea. All the best.

As a person who "hires people", would it be a good idea for a 50-year old guy to openly state in their CV that e.g. between Mar 2016 and Sep 2017 they were fighting testicular cancer? This wasn't my reason; I'm just asking for a friend.

"This information is very important."

Years != Experience

...but thanks for confirming the shallowness of the recruiting processes we've all experienced.

So you seriously don't believe that the difference between spending ~1 month or ~12 months or ~24 months at a company (all are possibilities, when a date range reads "2012-2013") isn't important information for a recruiter?

This isn't strictly about experience; it's also about whether someone a company is going to invest time in is going to stick around for a while, or is going to hop around a lot.

But regardless, years worked, when coupled with title/promotion history, is actually a decent proxy for experience. It's not perfect, but neither is the resume itself. No one is going to make a hiring decision solely on it, but it's a signal that can be useful.

Unless there is pattern of short stints, no. And if there is pattern over time, you see pattern.

I have seen quite dysfunctional toxic workplaces or teams. If you leave within one month, you have good social understanding and likely have better ethics then those who stayed. Those who stayed for long were all eventually compromised (meaning their ethics changed and they started to accept or do things they should not).

Our company have also few "trap" positions. The people there change quickly, because our hiring manager talks about positives (all true) and does not mention significant negatives. The more capable you are, the quicker you recognize the situation and leave.

It is perfectly fine to have some short stints.

It's not about believing, it's about knowing. You have to couple that time interval with the company they worked for.

At one company it took them 2 weeks to set-up my email, 3 months to decide on which project to work on and in about 6 months I was delivering something. So 6 months "experience" actually meant zero. I was ready to deliver from day 1 but...

At another company I had all the accounts created by the end of day 1, already working on bugs the second day. Some projects took 1 month in total. 6 months could mean 6 projects. The amount of skills accumulated in that time was way over the skills accumulated at the first company.

As you can see the time interval is useless. I think it's fairer if the recruiter simply rolls a dice.

it seems you've presented a single data point, yourself, and decided that this universally applies, which seems unreasonable.

I think most people's experiences of onboarding in new companies are somewhere in between, thus the tenure length provides another data point.

Furthermore, some hiring managers look for people that stick around for various reasons, e.g. hiring in that company is difficult due to bureaucracy, so knowing that somebody was at a company for two years vs 1 month is an important data point.

It seems you’ve presented zero data points, and decided that this does not universally applies, which seems unreasonable.

You’ve drawn the incorrect logic statement.

!Years == !Experience

It’s very hard for a SWE to have immediate impact, especially a junior one. Up to the first six months are a write-off. The next period includes their first launch and review with potentially a months long performance improvement plan.

With exceptional exceptions, longevity and impact go hand in hand and a lack of longevity at the very least poses questions. Sorry if you find that shallow.

A string of 11-13 month appointments is absolutely a non-green flag.

6 months is a write-off? By the time I was 6 months into my first software gig I had 5 months and 2 weeks of being a contributor. It was made clear to me that I was as entitled to voice wrong opinions as anyone else, and also entitled to own as much responsibility as I wanted. I found a niche that nobody else wanted to own and learned way more than I would have being spoon-fed the way you describe.

Then again, I guess there's junior and JUNIOR! Maybe a recent boot camp grad would have been less able to jump in.

Yup, 6 months is a write-off. I'm guessing you had the luck of joining a new project, or a company doing very small projects very fast. I personally only know one developer who seems to be able to onboard himself in a week or two, and that's in frontend webdev.

In my experience, even if all the bureaucracy and ops goes smoothly, any kind of reasonably sized existing project will take weeks to months before one can reach anything approaching full capacity. Learning the structure of the codebase, abstractions used, testing and deployment pipelines, the who's who, protocols for dealing with issues and customers, etc. takes a lot of time, and often can't easily be batched (i.e. you won't learn as much as you need even if you read the codebase end-to-end, you'll also be learning as you do your first tasks).

I had one experience with one-day-to-full-speed onboarding in the past. That was when I was briefly borrowed to a kind of bottom-feeder software house, whose job was to take garbage projects that were outsourced to way too cheap and unskilled labor, and beating them into something mostly working. At that job, once I got necessary accounts provisioned, it was just one unending stream of pushing items on a Kanban board at high velocity. You didn't have to own anything or care about anything, just do the fastest possible change that brings some aspect of a project up to customer's spec. Ain't particularly proud of that one (though I didn't have much of a choice here, their boss was a friend of my boss and needed a favor). Ain't something I'd even consider a proper software job.

> Yup, 6 months is a write-off ... any kind of reasonably sized existing project will take weeks to months before one can reach anything approaching full capacity

I won't speak for the GP, but I think you and I have differing definitions of "write-off". I don't consider all time spent below full capacity to be a write-off because, to me, "write-off" means "net unproductive". I believe someone should hit net productive well before it hits full capacity.

I don't think this advice applies to startups.

It’s more abstract than spoon feeding. Perhaps you imagined some kind of 6 month training program?

You can be very productive in your first few days, weeks and months but in terms of experience, the topic at hand, internally and externally that time doesn’t have any value on a resume.

This is on the assumption that you are looking for ‘experience’ as in experienced team developers who can focus on this particular business's goals. If you’re looking for people “experienced at writing code in [some language]“ then, yes, any time spent writing code in the job is experience.

If you work somewhere with a large code base and a fluid enough engineering team it does indeed take many months before one can see the bigger picture, and expectations of developers are set accordingly.

This is especially so with infrastructure / dev tools / internal tools where new projects are often driven by individuals. You have to use the infra itself — a lot — before you will have the insight into what can be improved.

If I was treated the way you describe here as a junior developer in the first year of my career, I would have abandoned software a long time ago.

The lack of trust is not something I'd be willing to put up with at the timescale you're describing.

It's not lack of trust. It's actually a grant of trust - trust that in 6 to 12 months you'll actually start making company more money than you cost them. The larger and older a project, the more time you need to spend learning its specifics before you can contribute something with positive ROI. It's just a fact of life.

My first two jobs had me undeniably junior but I still had a measurable sizeable impact on the businesses where I worked within the first two months. Seems an overgeneralisation to say the first six months are a complete loss by definition.

What you said is very true, at large companies only. There are way more companies that are smaller and move much faster. When they hire someone, it's very clear to them what they will be doing, who will present the project to them and so on. You could be writing code on day 1.

The length of time is largely dependent on industry as well. In Automotive, 3 to 3.5 years for 1 Project cycle would be a minimum to step out of the Junior status.

“We distrust folks with short stints on their resumes” is a great sentiment to articulate to your staff if you want to reduce turnover via misleading them.

that has nothing to do with shallowness, if someone has spent a few months at X previous jobs before you, this is definitely something to be addressed in the interview.

Had an acquaintance recently that hired a guy that didn't pass the probation period at 2 out of 3 jobs he had. My acquaintance didn't address this at all and hired him anyway. In a few short he managed to transform in the whole office to a hard to believe toxicity and had to be let go. He made a huge scandal, tried to involve lawyers etc. Now he didn't pass probation at 3 out of 4 jobs.

This smacks of the anecdotes anyone will have about someone they know (or a an acquaintance thereof) who's abusing social welfare. In reality, in most European countries, welfare abuse it at most 2% of all social welfare users and usually at 1%. The data just doesn't support large-scale welfare abuse. Is it shallow when people still assume there are huge amounts of moochers?

Now are there reasons why you might ask someone how long they stayed at their previous job? Yes, definitely. Does that make everyone suspect automatically? Hell no.

I don't have more data on the subject, so I won't draw any definite conclusions as to whether it is warranted to base someone's professional worth on the number of years/months served. My own experience shows only a very weak correlation there, and no correlation at all between seniority within a company and said company's attempts at retaining that employee.

I've seen people who had "ten years' experience" who in reality had done the same year, ten times. I've seen people who had three years' experience but were driven, looked into things on their own initiative and who outclasses those "seniors". It all seems to depend on what you're exposed to and, lacking exposure, what you'll subject yourself to of your own accord.

Have you read any studies on the subject?

If they have "X" cases of that, you see that with only years given too...

With "Work experience" I was referring to the field in the Show HN app

thats not how i read the OP

It's a pretty strong signal.

hey there - you might be interested in our product - https://rezi.io

FYI the "Rezi Is A Resume Builder For Top Companies" sections doesn't work well on mobile.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact