[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).