| > Several folks complained about the tremendous amount of homework they had to do after the initial screen, and once submitted, were ghosted. > That we don't provide specific feedback on individual applicants (even though we explicitly state that/why we don't)? Your response is not a response to the OP's claim. The OP didn't claim you didn't provide specific feedback, it was that they were entirely ghosted mid-process. And that others said the same. But even beyond that, your response doesn't align with your own careers page's "Hiring Process": > If candidates aren’t advanced into interviews by the process outlined in [rfd147], an explicit rejection should be sent. The level of oversubscription for Oxide roles means that this rejection will likely be non-specific — which is naturally frustrating for applicants that have put a lot of energy into their materials. Candidates may well respond to a rejection by asking for more specific feedback; to the degree that feedback can be constructive, it should be provided. Which would be in alignment: > Decency > We treat others with dignity, be they colleague, customer, community or competitor. Here you just come off quite defensive, and argue that you at are Oxide are "very clear about" things that you say quite the opposite about on the very directions you tell candidates to read. If what you say is true - and I can absolutely believe it is - fine, update the docs and the site. But don't come here and gaslight people into "I don't understand the problem. We're very clear, we've been very clear, people should not be complaining about this." Source: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0003 |
Eh, if even a small percentage of those emails end up in a spam folder then there are going to be people who think that they were ghosted. They didn’t ghost me. Alas, they didn’t hire me either.