Has it not occurred to anyone that what one dude says on twitter is the primary purpose might not be so?
The interviewer had to "save" the situation by blurting (regarding the sample code given to the applicant on paper), "oh, those stars, yeah they must be typos. Sorry about that! Let's move on to another question."
Only about 30% of applicants scored 100%. I'm still astonished.
We logged duration and attempts. I'm actually okay with someone retaking the test to improve their score. It was just CRUD work, requiring mechanics, not rocket scientists. And it means they recognized their own error and fixed it. Pretty much what you want out of any dev.
Among many options, provide a unique 'application key' on the instructions page which expires after first use. If you're really concerned, or it becomes a problem, just add a Captcha-like requirement to get your application key.
Besides, as asveikau points out, the risk is no different than any other application acceptance system. Take applications by mail? Fine, I'll buy a roll of stamps and make a few stops to the post office.
And what exactly do they mean by "hash"? They want the JSON to be a fixed length? How would you like my JSON hashed? How are you going to pull my data out of the hash?
And as a 'field' called response? Don't they mean, "as the value of a field called response"?
Is this part of the test, deciphering the jargon soup? Because if I'm understanding this correctly, a bunch of terms just got misused in a very short sentence, which would put me off of applying here.
Though, being too pedantic is certainly risks deterring the target applicants.
I think it means to suggest that you should send in your response a key value pair of response -> session ID that you get from the headers when you load that form.
Of course, the question of why they requested the key/value pairs be POSTed in JSON format when HTTP specifies a perfectly simple and widely supported mechanism for POSTing key-value-pairs to a web endpoint, which is application/x-www-form-urlencoded... well that's a different problem.
As people have picked up I meant a hash table serialised as JSON.
You are probably thinking about associative arrays. A hash table is something different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table
It's annoying terminology, I agree.
....so in fact they're probably weeding out programmers who've done such things
Not because JSON isn't an encoding though ("JSON-encoded" makes sense to me) but because saying "hash" instead of "hash table" or "associative array" or pretty much anything else is uncomfortable -- the word hash on its own generally refers to a hash function rather than the data structure.
"[...] serialization is the process of translating data structures or object state into a format that can be stored (for example, in a file or memory buffer, or transmitted across a network connection link) and "resurrected" later in the same or another computer environment"
From an EV perspective:
Contacting company as a recruiter: 0% or very low % of success
Posing as an applicant at first:
- x% chance of initial reply from hiring manager
- y% chance of "conversion" of manager into "client"
- x*y is perceived to be greater than other options
You could indeed flood us with applications using it, but if you did we could also screen them out pretty easily, or just turn the service off.
How is this any different from just having an online form to fill out? The only difference I can see is the web browser is filling out post details, rather than you just crafting it manually.
Are you a recruiter? Don't be sour grapes :P
I'm the person who put this process in place for Hubbub (which incidently is a great place to work, you should apply). I'll quickly skim through comments and post some answers now, but it's 0014 here so I'll probably catch up with the rest tomorrow. If you have any questions feel free to drop us a line on email@example.com (unless you're a recruiter!)
As a final note, we have much more detail at http://developers.hubbub.co.uk/, including information about the year's supply of bacon on offer to both successful applicants and the people who referred them.
I can't tell if you are making a pun. If you are, it's a good pun.
Because most people are applying to a 'better' job than the one they have now (Cooler? More money? More responsibility?), they know that most initial applications will come to nothing.
If you believe your CV will get a reply 1/5th of the time, spending more than the 5 minutes it takes to send over a slightly customized CV is foolish. There are a lot of other people that don't require this much effort. Time is better spent writing to them.
This is going to get plenty of replies, because it's on Hacker News, but if it was getting the traffic more organically (i.e. if this was widespread), I'm not sure it would get a single one.
Yeah sure, for the applicant he wants, this is solved with, notepad, curl, 10 minutes, but it's still more effort than emailing it to his rival.
Since then we've been receiving applications of a far higher calibre, and many applicants who went onto a full interview after phone screening. We definitely receive fewer applicants, but that's a trade off we're willing to make.
But probably wouldn't work so good today. The first one to find the solution would probably post it on twitter, then the recruiters could follow :)
It also has the precondition that the recruiter is willing to learn.
Would take me another ~3-5 to build a web front-end in flask.
So let's call it 10 minutes all in.
At $100 per hour that is $16. And you can get developers who would be capable of doing this for way less than $100 per hour (like $10 per hour) so $5 is about right.
Technical tests before screening appear to be getting more common. Currently job-seeking, I'm getting a little frustrated by the number of times I have to prove that I can actually implement variants of Fizz Buzz. It'd be nice if I could submit a link to a previously completed Codility test or something...
(Yeah, it'd be nice if they accepted Github links or something as proof of technical competence, but as someone on the other side I don't really want to have to validate a hundred random OSS projects and check the province of the code in them)
This process makes it abundantly clear that we're not interested, and also has the pleasant side effect of screening out people who aren't interested enough to read the man page for curl.
Flip side of posting fake jobs to get resumes.
Recruiters also pose as companies posting 'jobs', and from what I've seen when looking for gigs it's likely they solicit in the other direction as well. How low they sink, who knows.
Alternatively, the recruiter might want more details from the hiring manager about the open position, so they could hunt for applicants to bring back to the hiring manager.
Or they bait and switch, saying that person is no longer available and give a second resume, knowing they have full attention of whoever is hiring. Or they would find out their phone numbers and harass them with endless calls.
Plus, if the charade goes a few more emails, more details about the job.
Also, Parse (and a few other companies whose names escape me now) have been doing this for a while. https://parse.com/jobs (scroll down to "Apply to Parse!")
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your