[lolwutf]

I'll be transparent and say: I think it's crazy you expect developers to take a 45 day risk/trial period, in order to work at the company.

I'm an experienced dev (3+ years of wholesome experience + a solid work portfolio) and I could even deal with the rather significant pay cut I'd be taking... but a pay cut + risking not having employment, when I'm already settled in a current job?

No thanks.

But good luck.

[huhtenberg]

> I'm an experienced dev (3+ years ...

This is still "barely out of school, hardly knows what he's doing" stage :)

Edit - downvote me all you want, but if you are to show up on the interview and declare that you are in an "experienced dev (with 3+ years)", the interview will conclude quickly. It's not that you have just three years of experience, it's the fact that you think it's a lot. It's not. This makes you cocky and cockiness can be costly, especially in an otherwise coherent team.

[lolwutf]

Sure, whatever. Have it.

...but that still doesn't negate the fact that expecting anyone worth their salt to give up a current level of security for a 45 day gamble with Buffer is a smart hiring strategy.

[potatolicious]

Experience is relative. Compared to a 15+ year veteran sure, this guy's but a baby in the crib.

But he's still a baby in the crib with recruiters beating down his door left, right, and center, none of whom are expecting him to quit his job for a vague, conditional offer of employment.

This isn't about who deserves what, this is about the market conditions. Right now the market conditions are such that even devs with ~3 years of experience are highly sought after, with likely multiple recruiter contacts per day if they are even half decent at advertising their abilities.

This isn't about whether or not what Buffer expects is "wrong" (for whatever ephemeral notion of right and wrong), it's about what Buffer can get away with. In the current market they most certainly cannot get away with it.

[vonmoltke]

Define "half decent at advertising their abilities". I am going on 12 years hardware and software experience, and aside from shitty spam recruiters I have never had anyone beatig down my door.

[potatolicious]

If you don't have a LinkedIn profile, get one.

Make sure your summary is well written and keyworded with words that recruiters are looking for (and that apply to you) - Rails, C++, graphics, what have you.

Flesh out your past jobs section. Keyword these descriptions too as relevant (technologies used, major popular frameworks, libraries, etc).

Basically reverse engineer the recruiter's practices - they're using a search tool, searching for keywords relevant to the position they're fielding. This is not very different from SEO. Increase the likelihood of being in a search result and watch the recruiters pile in.

While you're at it, make sure your resume is always up to date and available on your own website (if you don't have a website, get one). Make sure you are high up in Google results for your own name. Keyword your resume the same way you'd do your LinkedIn profile - maybe ~5% of the recruiters that show up end up coming directly via my website through some kind of search.

[vonmoltke]

Well, that goes much further than I would go in defining "half decent". To me, that comes off as a real Type A, game the system type approach. If the market was really as hot as is often claimed, that would not be remotely necessary in order to be noticed.

What I think is going on, having observed from outside for many years, is that a certain subset of companies are fighting over the same small subset of engineers (self confident, type A shameless marketeers who happen to already be located in SV, NYC, or Seattle) and complaining that they can't find people because this subset is too small to satisfy them all.

I have had a LinkedIn profile for almost as long as LinkedIn has been around. I have had a website with my own domain name since 1999. I do not have personal or professional experience in $FLAVOR_OF_THE_WEEK. Despite all the talk here and elsewhere about how its fundamentals that matter and anyone competent can pick up $LANGUAGE or $FRAMEWORK in the time it takes to become familiar with the codebase, everyone still seems to hire based on the buzzwords.

No one ever taught me that I should be treating my resume like an SEO problem. In fact, I have received so much contradictory advice about how to structure my resume over the years that I am almost ready to throw up my hands in disgust. Plus, the idea of keyword-loading my resume and LinkedIn profile makes me feel dirty; hell, SEO in general makes me feel dirty.

[rezistik]

You're not using the technologies that are in demand, you're not writing detailed work histories, and you're not putting key words into your resume, please tell me you do not wonder why you're not being head hunted.

You belittle developers who are trying to advance themselves, their knowledge and make a good living with your Type A thing.

Everything starts off as a flavor of the week, Ruby on Rails was just a flavor of the week type deal and then it became huge. Same with Node now and with other stacks before that.

I've done recruiting, and am just finishing up a round for my company and lazy developers who half ass their resumes are frustrating. Trying to search for someone is a pain in the ass and not everyone is a professional developer, some of us are just developers at small companies trying to expand. If more people had well written LinkedIn profiles it would make our lives easier. If not a LinkedIn than you need to find some way to make yourself visible if you want to be headhunted.

That's not to say it's a bad thing, you can be a very well paid very comfortable developer without ever being head hunted, but having a well made portfolio will make your life easier certainly.

[WWLink]

I wonder this too! I don't know anyone complaining about their doors being beat down by recruiters lol.

[nymph]

Just because (some) recruiters may be "beating down his door" doesn't mean he's qualified for those jobs. Recruiters routinely overfit, just to cram as many resumes and profiles into their hiring funnels as possible. Throw it at the wall, see if it sticks.

Being as 90% of them can't tell the wheat from the chaff to save their skins, they have no other choice, really.

[wyclif]

Absolutely true. Especially the bit about recruiters.

[thoughtpalette]

I'd say 3 years at a certain company can gain you loads of experience rather than 8 years at a different one. Context is key here as well.

[joeldidit]

Yea, 3 years can be very little. But 3 years of real experience (plus intelligence) and the ability to actually come up with new and relevant solutions to problems probably trumps 15+ years of doing the same year's worth of work over and over again (not that uncommon), 20+ years working on technology that's no longer relevant, 10+ years of only doing what you're told while not being able to think for yourself, or any other number of things.

Filter out cockiness/arrogance that gets in the way of productivity/progress, etc: yes. Tell someone who's simply confident in their abilities that they don't know what they are doing because they only have 3 years of experience: no.

I understand that the prevalence of the so-called "entitled youth" has everyone ruffled these days, but there's a difference between being arrogant and feeling entitled (I'm sure these people exist, but don't they always), and not accepting the old world BS of bowing your head, taking everyone's shit, doing what you're told, then settling for the scraps that get thrown your way (something you should feel so lucky to have happen). In the case of the latter, that world needs to die, and I'm all about progress and moving past such suffocating, stagnating, backward nonsense.

Also, when it comes to programming, after about 5 years everyone evens out (with regards to gains unique/specific to years of experience) and there isn't really much difference. Everything past that is mostly inside knowledge or factual knowledge that you get from happening to work at one company or another (or with some person that happens to know said things). And since the technological landscape (past whatever the latest buzzwords or fads are) changes at least every 5 years, all that specific knowledge loses relevance with time.

[baddox]

And yet even this lowly peon of an engineer, who appears to be contently employed and presumably has great employment prospects if he wants a new job, is offput by this policy. If anything, that intensifies his point.

[bertil]

I can’t judge (not being exactly a developer) but I was repeatedly told in the last weeks that anything above five years of experience was not meaningful. I’m not sure I was too happy about that. More importantly I have worked with people with three years on the job that are juniors, and with people whose three years of experience let them run circles around my stories.

My point is: being cocky is always bad. There isn’t any real standards otherwise, but… you need to be aware that using absolutes makes you redeemable to a lot of things.

[dinkumthinkum]

I agree with you and I think the salaries are quite low. I'm just being honest.

[ch4s3]

Yeah really. This is a particular strain of bullshit that I've been hearing about a lot recently. It flows from the hire slow fire fast mantra of "lean startups." It feels and sounds like the cheapening of talent/expertise and people. Frankly I think treating people like reality show contestants even once they're in the door is bottom of the barrel behavior.

[lolwutf]

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

I understand the problem for Buffer, but this isn't the solution.

I've heard of companies who offer people to consult on weekends for a predetermined total number of hours to accomplish much the same outcome. Annoying, but I'll play ball.

...but really. I seriously doubt any high-end dev talent is willing to take such risks. And if you think this hiring strategy would be successful in attracting high-end dev talent that really cares about Buffer, well you haven't examined the hiring market lately and are likely high off your own supply.

[WWLink]

I don't know what's worse, the 45 day trial or the "congratulations! You've jumped through 3 fire hoops! Now you have the chance to come spend a full day being interviewed by 10 different people!" stuff.

A lot of companies have probation periods though.

[nollidge]

You're on a trial at every single company anyway, they just aren't as up front about it.

[ch4s3]

well, I'm just feeling a bit burned after a presentation I sat through the other week on the topic.

[emperorcezar]

I have to agree. What I think is a big deal here is for developers with families. 45 days is 45 days without health insurance and other important benefits. There is COBRA, but that's two months of paying that bill. For most family plans that's 3 - 4k in expense.

That said, it really depends how much they are paying the prospective employee while contracting. If it's enough to make up for that then it might be worth the risk to some people.

[wyclif]

What's that you say? Developers with families and (gasp) kids? You mean developers older than 22, with actual lives and responsibilities outside of work? Inconceivable!

I will say this, though— I give them credit for being open about what they really want. A lot of companies don't do that.

[emperorcezar]

Ha. Sometimes feels like that.

The transparency make them one of the better companies out there. Though I'm surprised this trial period isn't mentioned in their job listings in some way.

[baddox]

Isn't the "45 day trial" just a disclosure of a reality that is always the case? Unless you're going to get an actual contract, which as far as I know is rare for this kind of work, you're always technically on a "trial," even after years at the company.

[etherealG]

where did you find this info?

[lolwutf]

See footnote at this: http://open.bufferapp.com/two-more-happiness-heroes-join-the...