undefined | Better HN

0 pointsRichardCA6y ago0 comments

I think the thing people are "on about" is that we have become so cynical about the current status quo, that there's no oxygen left to have a real conversation about what constitutes a true "false negative".

It would require some sort of longer-term data gathering around the rejection / ghosting process.

For example, Google claims to be very objective and data-driven about their hiring process, but once a candidate is rejected there is no further data.

How would one solve such a problem?

If we agree that it's just window dressing around a "song and dance" (I prefer to call it "the rituals of gate keeping"), there is no problem to be solved.

But I still feel like giving in to cynicism is the wrong answer.

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

spunker5406y ago· 1 in thread

I’ve been rejected from Google, and a year later they reached back out asking if I wanted to try again. The recruiter even told me over the phone that most people they hire these days have already been rejected at least once before. So they openly acknowledge that a lot of times their best bet is to get people back in the door who they know were close. I’m curious how they determine the timing. Why wait a year vs 6 months vs 1 month?

gwbas1c6y ago

Similar situation; I was rejected around 2007-ish. Many years later when they reached out the recruiter told me that they changed their process and they believed their newer process was bringing in better hires.

For what it's worth: Someone who works well in an established company isn't always the right person to hire in a young company.

gonzo416y ago

It's a really interesting point you raise. Road not taken etc. I wonder if google quantifies the impact of hires over the long term. How productive are you? How much does your contribution make the company and if you weren't here would google notice?

If google could know when it was about to deny a speculative false negative it could hire them exclusively into a part of the company where everyone is a speculative false negative. Then you could just watch them compete with those who pass and try and measure something objective.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse