[fecak]

As a recruiter, I'd be curious to hear what tricks were played to get you to interview. I'm an independent, so when I speak to people there is never anything ambiguous about our discussions (my clients are not looking to acquire your product if you have one).

Is it possible that Google liked your product and subsequently thought you might be a good hire, but didn't like your product as a potential acquisition? That is where I think the difference lies. Were you contacted as "I'm from Google and we are interested in you", or "I'm from Google and we are interested in your product"? That is a big difference. The fact that you specifically mention "Their recruiters" would lead me to believe it was the former, but if they mention your product (beyond some acknowledgment of it) that might fall into a gray area.

Thousands of people abandon small side projects and independent businesses every year to join companies as an employee. Just because a company is recruiting someone who happens to have some product doesn't necessarily mean that the hiring company has interest in both the person and the product.

[jtbigwoo]

>> Thousands of people abandon small side projects and independent businesses every year to join companies as an employee. Just because a company is recruiting someone who happens to have some product doesn't necessarily mean that the hiring company has interest in both the person and the product.

In the post above, the whole bit about being from "Google Corporate Development" is shady. We're only hearing one side of the story, but it seems someone at Google is using a famous name and the fuzzy promise of an acquisition to try to trick him into coming to California for a job interview.

[fecak]

I understand your point as it relates to the blog post. My comment was specific to the parent post about being contacted by Google recruiters.

I agree that being contacted by "Corp Dev" is shady if there is no intent on a potential acquisition. That said, I don't find it shady at all if a Google recruiter contacts talented technologists who happen to have some sort of side project.

If DHH gets a call from Google, they'd better have interest in Basecamp. If some Ruby dev who has a small product with 500 customers gets a call from Google recruiters (not corp dev), the dev shouldn't assume it's an acquihire situation. There is, as usual, some gray area of course.

[dreamweapon]

Is it possible that Google liked your product and subsequently thought you might be a good hire, but didn't like your product as a potential acquisition? That is where I think the difference lies. Were you contacted as "I'm from Google and we are interested in you", or "I'm from Google and we are interested in your product"? That is a big difference.

If you look at the opening emails from the two Googlers (X and Y) then it's abundantly clear that the emphasis was on, in X's case, the company, and in Y's case, the product.

And more to the point: at no point did they say what a recruiter should say at the opening of any (honest and professionally delivered) cold call. Which is of course: "Hi, I'm Z and I'd like to talk with you about joining the engineering team here at FooBar."

Finally, it's extremely difficult to interpret the fact that they chose to identify themselves as comping from Corporate Development (rather than Recruiting, or even Engineering) as anything other than a (rather clumsy) attempt at misdirection.

[justizin]

I think what's troubling people about the e-mails, and I'm not sure it's 100% clear cut, is that while it is plausible that this was a clumsy interaction, it seems more likely that this was classic bait-and-switch, and that these two individuals have a playbook they execute on the regular.

Anyone distracting someone who could be spending time on their own business, or billing hourly, with a business offer, should be incredibly concerned about a Lost Opportunity suit. Come up with a way to value the time that you spent, attach it to an opportunity cost, and bam, your dishonest business partner has caused your other business dealings to fail.

I don't want to encourage further abuse of the legal system, but IMO it is an abuse of the legal system to engage in an act you know to be unlawful or harmful, but difficult or costly to enforce.

[fecak]

Again, if you read my comment and the parent comment, I am specifically addressing the parent comment (written by MCRed, just so we're all clear here), and I am responding to his/her anecdote about Google recruiters.

The emails you are referring to pertain to the linked article, and have nothing to do with my comment here.

[dreamweapon]

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

[sosuke]

Just a side not, whether you're targeting people with projects or not. The opening phrase recruiters use of "are you looking for a job" or "are you interested in a position" especially when they say they've done background work is all wrong. If I says yes to either of those I've lost the power position. Recruiters should come with reasons why you should join that position, why you should leave etc.

[fecak]

By being the one approached by the recruiter, and not approaching the recruiter yourself, you are in the power position by default. You are being pursued and coveted, and that doesn't change if you admit to being open to a change of job.

[DubiousPusher]

I never want to work for a company that gives a crap about who has the "power position." There's companies I'm interested in and companies that are interested in me. I have an idea of what they can afford and I know what I need. I set a number there and if they can't pay it I can't accept.

If a recruiter's goal is to shave off $5,000 or $10,000 from your ask then they are wasting time because they could likely just as easily find someone who can fill the position at that compensation level.