[mephi5t0]

Down votes are incorrect.

Recruited means enlisted, hired. She was never hired, she was contacted by recruiters and interviewed. "Recruited" doesn't mean "contacted by recruiters" it means hired to do work. Recruiter - who hires/searches for "recruits". Recruit is a person that was recruited not contacted by a recruiter.

[crazygringo]

Not at any tech company I've ever worked at.

Recruiters contacting someone is the recruiting -- the reaching out, telling them what a great company it is, getting them in for an interview, and so on. It's expanding the funnel of interviewees.

Hiring is actually making an offer. That decision is made by different people higher up, and not the recruiter.

Maybe it's different at different companies or industries, but this is my whole experience with it across all sorts of companies in NYC.

(And in response to comment about the Merriam-Webster definition -- meanings change. Lots of tech lingo is different from dictionary definitions. You can say "let's offline this" in a meeting, and you won't find that definition in MW either.)

[slantyyz]

>> Not at any tech company I've ever worked at.

Well, there are grey areas to a lot of these words we're using in this discussion, as the meaning depends heavily on context and the background of the reader (or recipient).

>> Hiring is actually making an offer.

Is it? So when Github says "we're hiring", does that mean they're making an offer to everyone who contacts them? I tend to think most people will interpret that as "we're accepting applications for open positions".

Of course, if Github says "We're hiring Joe Smith", that's a completely different meaning because it's in a different context.

[noja]

The recruiters _are_ recruiting, but they have not recruited someone until that person is earning a salary.

[vonmoltke]

No, at it's most strict they haven't recruited someone until the company makes an offer. You can be recruited by multiple groups simultaneously. Happens all the time in college sports.

[slantyyz]

> No, at it's most strict they haven't recruited someone until the company makes an offer. You can be recruited by multiple groups simultaneously. Happens all the time in college sports.

Kinda depends on the context, doesn't it? The context can subtly change how the word is interpreted.

This is how I would interpret the various forms based on my own personal experience -- your interpretations may differ:

Recruiter is recruiting Joe -> Trying to hire Joe

Recruiter has recruited Joe -> Successfully hired Joe

Joe was recruited x times by Google --> Google tried to hire Joe x times

Joe was recruited x times by Google to do Y, Z --> Google assigned or hired Joe to do Y, Z x times

Joe is being recruited -> Someone is trying to hire Joe

Joe was being recruited by A, B, C -> A, B, C trying to hire Joe

We are recruiting Joe to be our representative for X -> Joe has been designated to be the representative

Joe was recruited by Company -> Joe was hired

Joe is a new recruit -> Joe is a new employee

[plonh]

These examples show that the language is ambiguous. Coders need to cope with that, not pretend English has a good spec.

[vonmoltke]

This sub-discussion reminds me of the issues with the phrase "job offer". To native English speakers, it is generally taken to mean "company has offered to hire you with a certain compensation package". To non-native English speakers, particularly it seems continental Europeans, it is generally taken to mean "company has offered to consider you for a job" (as opposed to you approaching them).

[richmarr]

Down votes aren't incorrect because of the definition of 'recruited'.

Down votes are incorrect because downvoting someone merely because you disagree is the embodiment of confirmation bias.

That makes it the enemy of debate, and of reason itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

(Cue a stream of people claiming the thread is off-topic as an attempt to rationalise their downvotes, or down-voting me with equally fallacious reasoning)

[richmarr]

...and downvotes. Pathetic guys, really pathetic.

[ectoplasm]

pg said downvoting disagreement is fine.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

[richmarr]

Well, I respectfully disagree, for the reasons already stated (like most of the on-topic replies to that comment). Even the ones that agreed with pg suggested other mechanics to make up for the down-sides of the current system.

At the start of an innovation or social change the majority opinion is wrong, almost by definition. By having a single reward metric, and then structuring your system so that minority opinions get punished, you're creating a culture that's less free-thinking and more monocultural than it should be.

I can totally understand pg not wanting to change it, after all, he has a day job, but I don't think his 'up is agreement so down should be disagreement because symmetry' argument is worth much as stated.

After all, simple agreement has no worthwhile attribute other than a count of those who agree. Disagreement on the other hand is completely different, there are thousands of reasons why you might disagree with anything but the simplest of comments. Simply recording disagreement as a number is meaningless.

Edit: (I upvoted you for bothering to engage and find a link rather than just downvoting)

[ectoplasm]

I agree with you, I was just pointing out the rules. I try not to worry about the point system here too much. Usually I just upvote everybody who replies to me.