[0xFACEFEED]

> 1. Dodged a bullet

I'd argue that Codecademy dodged a bullet. Calling them out by name is in really bad taste IMO.

Let's be honest: if he had launched a coding tutorial website thing and it didn't have the "comeback story" marketing narrative then no one would care.

[jgwil2]

If it's so easy to build a coding tutorial website, then what advantage does Codecademy have beyond name recognition? So you're not competing with their tech, you're competing with their marketing. You say bad taste, I say good marketing.

[0xFACEFEED]

I don't think it's objectively good marketing. But then I guess it depends on what your philosophical stance is on "succès de scandale" (a logical extreme; there isn't much controversy here).

My stance on the ethics of marketing is that "anything goes" until you start tarnishing the names of others to get ahead. This is why trash talking past employers/coworkers has always been an insta-no-hire in my book for example.

Now I don't know to overstate what this guy did. Obviously he's not outright trash talking here. But I think once you form a company and start marketing then you should be held to some ethical standard. If you mention other people or companies by name then consider how what you're saying could be perceived.

[splistud]

Content? Seems like a good advantage to have for a tutorial website.

[ironmagma]

What kind of harm does this actually do to Codecademy? I would argue none. There is no downside to calling them out.

[0xFACEFEED]

Just look at the comment above mine: "booo on any company that". Some people will perceive his rejection as bad hiring practices on Codecademy's part.

Every comeback story needs a bad guy that rejects or pushes down the hero before they rise. That's what makes this post interesting.

It's certainly not the content; creating a web app of stitched together NPM packages isn't exactly a major challenge these days. Especially if you're copying something else feature-by-feature.

[ironmagma]

> Some people will perceive his rejection as bad hiring practices on Codecademy's part.

FTR, I have no opinion for or against Codecademy.

Whether it's a bad or good hiring practice depends on what you think of this guy. The information on whether any company hires or rejects a certain applicant is not a trade secret. If you read this and think, "this guy's a douchebag," then yes, the company looks sane and reasonable, the opposite of bad. If you read it and think, "this guy is perfectly reasonable," then yes, the company looks bad.

This poster isn't saying anything about whether Codecademy is good or bad, they're just stating the facts, which were created as a result of the company's hiring decisions. If the facts make them look bad, that's on the company for making the choices they did. If they make them look good, the same applies. Again, I have no horse in this race.

[0xFACEFEED]

> they're just stating the facts

They're stating their projected version of the facts. It's the narrative as they see it. Important details could be missing.

Suppose you and I made a few attempts to start a company together and it didn't work out. Then I went off on my own as a solo founder and got seed funding. Then imagine I made a blog post titled "I tried to start a company with ironmagma 3 times and failed, so I became a solo founder instead and succeeded".

> Again, I have no horse in this race.

There's no race? Just commentary. It's an interesting discussion IMO.

[ironmagma]

Okay, but in that sense of projection, all stated facts are projected versions of the facts. In your opinion, should we just not discuss our experiences with companies at all, since the descriptions will be mere projections of what actually happened?

[0xFACEFEED]

> In your opinion, should we just not discuss our experiences with companies at all, since the descriptions will be mere projections of what actually happened?

I don't think I can answer that question without more context. It largely depends on the situation.

In this case he could have simply omitted the name of the company:

> I was rejected by <insert succinct description of what these coding tutorial sites are> three times, so I built my own

He's sharing the same story without throwing jabs at a particular company. I could have done the same in my above example with the same result:

> I tried to start a company with someone 3 times and failed, so I became a solo founder instead and succeeded

--

IMO it comes down to professional etiquette. Don't broach muddy topics in public because the audience doesn't have enough context to see the complete picture. It's sort of like airing your dirty laundry in a public restaurant.