Do you find it to be an overused, dead, beaten horse of a meme? Do you find it's often overused and abused by non-technical hiring personnel? Do you find it's often used in lieu of appropriate title and/or compensation?
Do you find that it automatically prejudices you against a job listing?
Do you use the term rockstar in your own job listings? If so, where do you see your startup or shop on the scale of gee whiz hotness?
I'm guessing what you're likely to attract with this kind of post is a lot of arrogant code cowboys that don't play well with others.
The handful of connected real "rockstar" programmers don't need to scan job boards. One could be a completely awesome programmer at a company which does not realize his/her potential and could be looking for a new job. Of course, mentioning the word "rockstar" doesn't really mean anything if the pay/benefits are no different from average. My point is not every rockstar programmer has a fan-following, famous blog, and tons of open-source projects. Corollary, not every programmer with a fan-following, famous blog, and tons of open-source projects is a rockstar.
This is a problem with the term. 'Rockstar' has pretty strong connotations of fame and confidence. 'Rockstar toiling in obscurity' or 'underappreciated rockstar' are contradictions in terms.
I hate the term myself, except that it seems to indicate a certain cluelessness that may be exploitable.
If it's not an interesting project, getting a good programmer to jump on it will be hard.
If you have to call yourself, your company, your product or your programmers "rockstars" then none of you are real rockstars. If you have to ask "what's different about rockstar's lifestyles compared to the small people?" then you definitely have no idea what you're even talking about.
It's just like being called a "hacker", or a "gangster" or similar. You either have legit street cred, and thereby are automatically included amongst an elite, meritocratic subculture, or you don't.
Even people who wrote an single excel script call themselves hackers here (and are defended for it! I've seen it happen)
EDIT: At this point in my life I'd be embarrassed to be called a hacker. So I don't feel ashamed being an impostor here.
Fortunately I don't think that anyone has tried to claim that posting to HN makes you a hacker. It's (news (of interest for hackers)) rather than (news of interest (for hackers)). So posting doesn't mean you are claiming to be a hacker, just that you are interested in the stuff hackers are interested in.
By the way in my view some of the most interesting hacks are done in Excel (for example the guy who wrote an Excel 3D engine - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3563/microsoft_excel_r... - no one can seriously claim that this isn't a hack in the best sense of the word.) Making constrained systems do things they were never designed to do is practically the definition of hacking.
It's sort of like a parent that really wants to be cool telling their kids that they really like those "Limp Biscuit" fellows - it's not that the sentiment is entirely unappreciated, but the attempt is so misguided and cheap that it's a bigger turnoff than if they'd just embraced their un-coolness to begin with.
The problem is that this is inherently completely bullshit. Most companies are driven by sales of a service or non-software product, which makes you less important than the people directly responsible for making and selling the product. Even if you're a developer centric company, there are so many 'stars' that there are none, so it's more like being part of the choir that accompanies a rock band (every 10 years or so, when that's cool again). It's pretty nice, but you're certainly going to be held accountable for destroying your hotel room.
In my opinion, the only things that can be appealing about a job listing are technologies used (if they're telling the truth and not just spitting out buzzwords) and location.
On the flip side, if you want me to think your culture is cool and fun (as the 'rockstar' listing aims to do), you have to make sure that every person I meet from your company (or a vast majority) are cool and fun. Otherwise, no amount of buzzwords is going to attract me to your position.
It does sound appealing. But then you quickly become part of crazy meetings, changing priorities, deadlines, 'agile' planning, dealing with other teams that are less rock-band-like and other stuff that gets in the way of rockstar habits.
Great thing I'm my own boss, I guess.
I responded to the recruiter to ask if drugs, groupies and obscene amounts of alcohol were involved. And also if I could destroy a hotel room or two.
I then explained to them that there is nothing rockstar about software development and that I would rather be approached in a more professional way.
I quickly got a followup email back from the recruiter's boss saying that they made up the rockstar bit and that the client had nothing to do with it. He did apologize and said he would love to have a serious talk.
Short version: It was initially a helpful construct to suggest that:
* Your potential place of work was not stuffy. That the applicant could seek relief from their horrible bank job. (This signal is now false given that boring bank jobs say "rockstar." :D )
* The applicant will be respected and treated well (like a rockstar), not a codemonkey.
Nowadays, "rockstar" implies the applicant must be all-skilled, all-talented, with no burden on the potential place of work to live up to anything suggested by use of the word :)
http://blog.submitmy.info/2010/02/wanted-the-worlds-best-can...
My question is, are there other ways of indicating those qualities that won't be immediately copied by the "uncool" companies?
In the bay area, all programmers are rock stars.
One term from a job posting that I really liked was "best available athlete." It was for a business development type job, and it said to me that they were looking for talent over experience. Unfortunately, it turned out that they were looking for someone who could take on an entry level job at the company while also filling in for their soon to leave admin.
I guess the best way to determine what terms are effective an which are overused is to split test them somehow. Someone should build that kind of functionality into an Applicant Tracking System.
Do rockstars even have jobs? Probably they do in a way, but I could imagine that they don't see themselves as people who have jobs.
But it's not as informative as other signs. For example, programming language choices and transparency. In this regard, the most impressive company I know is Relevance:
Other good companies include Freiheit and RethinkDB:
http://www.freiheit.com/tag/Jobs (note the google translator)
Doesn't mean that the programmer is worth a damn. That's a different question. Confusion results when you confuse what's being said.
It also doesn't mean that a rockstar programmer is what you really need. But that's also a different question.
Back when the economy was a bit more dire, I interviewed with a place that called itself "funky", with a team of "ninjas".
Turned out to be an accountancy software house with some typical line of business apps that needed to be ported to the web because a local web startup was eating them up for breakfast and converting their customers like crazy.
I'd much rather see a job ad looking for a "Software Samurai," already possessed of great competency, but eager to learn new tricks and improve himself as a developer.
The general sentiment is that it is neo-corporate and shows a lack of understanding and lack of concern about substance of candidates.