[ishiz]

This is a good opportunity for me to ask something I've been wondering for a while about what is appropriate to put on a blog tied to your real identity.

The majority of this article could be seen as negative toward the author's former employer. The website is also listed on the author's CV, and knowing the author's name it is easy to find the website. Is there the possibility that this is seen as unprofessional, or that someone who was involved might read it and be upset? Maybe it is okay because the company is defunct (I assume), or because it was so long ago?

I ask because I am early in my career and I just finished a job where the majority of the things I learned were non-technical in nature. I would like to write about the lessons learned but, like this article, it would have some component of criticism about the company. Like the author, my website is on my resume and the website can be found by searching online for my name. Someone reading my resume could figure out what company I'm talking about, and some people who work there might find it. I don't live in a large tech hub in the US so it's very likely a future potential employer knows some people personally that I might have criticized vaguely (but due to process of elimination from the jobs listed on my resume wouldn't be hard to identify).

The advice I've been given from people I know is to either not have a website tied to your identity at all, or be as professional as possible if it is tied to your identity.

What do you think? If you knew this author, or it you stumbled across this article because you are thinking of hiring the author, how would you feel?

[fragbait65]

I personally wouldn't, but everybody has to decide for themselves.

I at least know a few companies that would avoid hiring people who criticize old employers, afraid they will be next. I mean, most companies have at least some "skeletons in the closet" of bad practices or what not.

Having said that I'm usually brutally honest in job interviews, I see it as my way of screening companies, if they don't want the honest me, then I would probably not fit the company culture anyway. So there might be nothing wrong with having an honest blog in the end, maybe you receive less offers, but the offers match you more.

[im3w1l]

I would imagine that the how makes a big difference. Publicly on a blog vs privately in an interview is one aspect of that. And your tone: matter of factly stating problems vs agitated ranting.

[cerved]

it's often more fun to read the agitated ranting

[arp242]

I think this is a good question; as the author of this, my general attitude to these kind of things is that I'd rather just be myself rather than try to tactically modify my behaviour to get better outcomes.

I've seen people advise that you should "avoid controversial topics" on first dates, as that "might be a turn-off". Well, maybe it can be (certainly had a few dates like that), but that would also be boring conversation, and not very meaningful as such if you're actually looking for a serious relationship (which doesn't apply to just romantic relationships by the way, also other kind of social relationships). Related comment from last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23788380

It's partly cultural as well; I've seen this in certain countries (cough England cough), where everyone avoids talking about anything meaningful so all they talk about is the weather or some such pointless conversation because they're afraid someone could possible disagree with something they say. It's not like I'm against small-talk, but if that's all you do... Okay, I'm exaggerating a little bit, but it's certainly very different from my own Dutch culture where people tend to be a lot more forthright.

It's not like I will just say whatever without any filter or consideration for other people's feelings, or what might be inappropriate, or without being receptive to feedback. Actually, I try to be quite conscious in how I communicate, especially online where the lack of body language and diversity of culture/social norms can make things pretty darn hard. But at the end of the day this is mostly about how you say something rather than what you say. e.g. "this is stupid" vs. "I'm not sure if this is a good idea".

There are always trade-offs of course. I was known as "Carpetsmoker" online for years and I changed it across the board over a period of a few years to "arp242" mostly because I felt "Carpetsmoker" didn't sound too professional (a lot of people seem to associate it with drug use – I don't even like to smoke cannabis! It was just a funny joke I made when I was 14 that turned in to a nickname). I still think it's kinda funny, but what's an appropriate nickname when you were 14 isn't necessarily appropriate when you're 36 and actually use your GitHub as a way to earn your living, and it doesn't really matter all that much what your name is; so I just changed it.

I publish it on my personal name because I see it as my personal space. Being anonymous would make it "arp242's personal space" rather than "Martin's personal space". I know some people like to keep their "online identity" more separate from their "real life identity", but personally I don't really separate things out all that much.

This is a bit rambly maybe; I'm having a hard time to articulate my feelings on this ... but I hope it makes sense.

And, of course, everyone can make their own choices in this.

[Layke1123]

You should speak truth regardless of what others think. You'll get more respect even if you ruffle a few feathers.

[tinus_hn]

Musing about how you used to call your employer like the failed painter from Austria is a bridge further than ‘ruffling a few feathers’.