A job being “verified” doesn’t solve the main problem post around 2023. Every single job opening gets hundreds of openings within the first day of it being opened.
If you are looking for a job as any type of generic developer - full stack, front end, mobile, back end, it’s almost impossible to stand out from the crowd. No, “I reversed a btree on the whiteboard to get into big tech as a mid level developer” doesn’t make you special.
If you do have a specialized set of skills that allows you to stand out from the crowd, you still shouldn’t be randomly spamming job boards and you should be able to sell yourself to someone at the company.
My personal anecdote. In my specialty - AWS + app dev + leading strategic initiatives, I’m very well credentialed (trust me on this) and in a certain niche of AWS, I was considered one of the industry experts at the time (again trust me).
But when randomly spamming job boards on a lark in 2023, I heard nothing.
That was always a plan B while I was waiting for what ended up being three offers via my network and one by reaching out to a company who specialized in my niche of AWS.
I’m not bragging, I am old. I should have a network and credentials.
Yes, we recently posted for an entry/mid level position and we got 1800 applications in a few days. It’s impossible to filter the list, I spent several hours to see how feasible it was and after getting through maybe 150 applications I gave up. We’re a small team, we don’t have the resources to cut through the noise without just blanket rejecting people. There doesn’t need to be a board that vets jobs, there needs to be a board that vets candidates and makes it easier for companies find their ideal candidate.
How do you vet mid level and entry developers? I know that sounds like a dumb question. But I only expect a mid level developer especially enterprise developers to turn well defined requirements into code. The bar is especially low in the age of AI. One is basically interchangeable to another. I have only interviewed senior level developers - ie people who I expect to operate on a higher level of scope, impact and ambiguity.
Those are easy to filter out via a few behavioral questions.
Do what everyone is doing (for better or worse): feed those into a CLI LLM, have it give you a csv of the top 20 candidates based on some criteria, manually review those.
If you take away my AWS account and my ability to “add on to what Becky said” and “look at things from a 1000 foot view”, I am a “generic developer” and was one for 25 years.
That doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that “generic developers” are a dime a dozen and it’s hard to stand out from the crowd using an ATS. I just said I had the same issue when experimenting with ATS’s.
This shouldn't surprise me, knowledge of a code base is a competitive advantage. But there is just something depressing about it. Maybe it being closed source and you having to learn it by being burned by undocumented behavior? Please tell more
It’s Amazon Connect - a popular hosted call center solution ported to AWS from Amazon Retail. There are people and companies that do nothing but Amazon Connect. But that’s all they know. I’m a developer first with well rounded experience with AWS. It’s just the niche that helps me stand out a little when I was looking for a job and now internally where I work for a third party consulting company. But you can throw me at almost any AWS related project and I’ve probably done something related over the past 8 years.
I worked at AWS ProServe / their internal consulting department - full time blue badge RSU earning employee - and I was one of the highest contributors to a popular at the time open source “AWS Solution” around Connect and I had my own open source projects published under AWS’s open source GitHub organization.
BTW, I would never use the “solution” now. There are a lot better ways to do it post gen AI.
The thing was, it was years before AWS introduced APIs around Connect and even longer before they have CloudFormation support. I was the first to use those APIs at scale for clients and found and reported bugs to the team while I was there.
Hiring is so broken that this just isn't enough. We really need an IETF RFC for open positions. A full-blown TCP-like protocol for an open position, with TTL, SYN ACK handshakes, and data encryption. Anything else is half-assing it. I'm only half joking. It's pretty bad today.
What makes a job verified in this case? You can easily verify a firm exists, but that’s not really the critical part. The question “is this a ghost job with no intention to be filled” is the real struggle.
Good point. Verifying that a company exists is relatively easy, but confirming that the role is actually open and actively being hired for is definitely harder.
I was thinking verification could include confirming the recruiter’s identity and requiring employers to periodically confirm that the position is still active. Ghost jobs are definitely an important challenge.
> confirming the recruiter’s identity and requiring employers to periodically confirm that the position is still active.
If a position is only listed due to a requirement, and is already basically guaranteed to someone making an internal transfer, knowing the recruiter's identity and having a manager pinky-swear the job offer is real does nothing.
That definitely makes things harder. Roles posted for internal transfers or compliance reasons are tricky because they may never have been intended for external candidates.
Maybe verification would need signals showing that the role is actually open to external applicants.
I wonder if something like an “externally open role” label would help.
Cyrpto had some interesting takes on these sort of problems that we haven't really applied more broadly.
The way I'd design a job board is require the applicant to escrow X and the job poster to escrow Y*X. Y is is the trust ratio. Given a bad experience, either the side can 'burn' the other and send both escrowed amounts to charity. An okay trust ratio might be 10, meaning they'll give you 10:1 burn ratio. A good one might be 100 or 1000. At that point they are essentially handing you a big stick to beat them with if they misbehave.
This would entirely eliminate spam and ghost jobs - suddenly everyone would be magically really responsive and polite.
You have to think through the applicant issue. As a hiring manager every time I post a job i get hundreds of applicants and most are not viable for different reasons. A verified listing does nothing to help me deal with the influx of low quality and fake applicants.
There's two sides to this. Companies need to be able to make sure they're able to locate (and not miss) viable candidates. But job-seekers need to know there's a legitimate company and an actual job. There are many job scams out there, especially for entry level, low-skill jobs.
In my early days, I once went through three interviews for a small "start up." On the third round, the founder admitted he couldn't pay me in anything but "equity" even though I specifically asked about funding and compensation on the first interview. (I got a very early "Craigs List" to pull the job listing--with an personal reply from Craig Newmark--and the "employer" settled with me for several thousand after I sent a demand letter and filed a claim in Santa Clara County small claims court for fraud.)
The poster has a confirmed email address that is associable to the business? Maybe
The poster has a confirmed email address that is associable to the business and their name is verifiable as HR/Hiring Manager/Someone in a legitimate position to post this offer? Sure
Otta in the UK (now eaten by the inexplicably-named Welcome to the Jungle) used to have a very involved vetting process during company onboarding, and I could verify that it was a great service as both a candidate and a hiring manager. To replicate what you want ("every listing is verified") there's no silver bullet but a good vetting process like that goes a long way.
Another site I like is cord.com, which seems to prioritise companies where recruiters are active on that website, I've had a good experience with that one as well, as you get to chat with an actual recruiter in a matter of hours or days.
the job-to-be-done is connecting the job to the right person. Not job verification.
I built a mobile app dev team in fintech years ago. I remember one person was literally selling their house and moving and was looking for a job. Call it luck, serendipitous, what you will, but the "connection" was made at the right time, right place.
How do we solve that problem more effectively? Cuz right now it's a roll of the dice, constant linkedin messages, etc.
Probably not, as you’d essentially be performing the function of a recruiter, but not providing the ability for applicants to skip the initial steps of the hiring process by talking to you. Recruiters already list their open jobs in board-like software.
I see what you mean about it being a coordination problem.
Do you think the main issue is that job boards create too much noise — hundreds of applications — instead of helping companies and candidates find better matches?
If that's the case, what kind of system do you think would improve that coordination?
Imo it might be worthwhile creating a job board that solves the “company-side” issue with the current recruitment process where 200 people will spam AI generated slop CV to every post that opens up. Some kind of account coupled with a ratelimit and you should already deliver some value to people recruiting.
To a large degree, the problem with job boards is job boards are a two sided market for lemons
On the one hand, applicants are applicant who cannot find a job through people they know and the companies are companies who cannot find candidates through people they know Good jobs and good employees come through relationships and you cannot automate relationships.
That’s true, platforms like LinkedIn try to verify companies.
What I’m more curious about is whether people would value deeper verification of the actual job posting itself, not just the company.
I want a job board that can filter companies like ATS filters candidates. I want to know salary, benefits, equity comp, tech stack, and workflow practices like CI, test suite time, test coverage, meetings per week, etc.
That’s an interesting point. Transparency about things like salary, tech stack, and engineering practices would probably make job boards much more useful. It sounds like verification alone might not be enough without better information about the role.
The answer is yes, and I speak for everybody. People use job boards anyway, why not use another one with the +1 that, at least, you won't get scammed.
Everyone likes to pretend this and that, "I wouldn't do it", "what problem do you solve", etc. I've published many jobs and they all come like hyenas fighting over scraps.
Don't listen to them, just build the thing; they'll use it, they need the bread, lmao.
No.
A job being “verified” doesn’t solve the main problem post around 2023. Every single job opening gets hundreds of openings within the first day of it being opened.
If you are looking for a job as any type of generic developer - full stack, front end, mobile, back end, it’s almost impossible to stand out from the crowd. No, “I reversed a btree on the whiteboard to get into big tech as a mid level developer” doesn’t make you special.
If you do have a specialized set of skills that allows you to stand out from the crowd, you still shouldn’t be randomly spamming job boards and you should be able to sell yourself to someone at the company.
My personal anecdote. In my specialty - AWS + app dev + leading strategic initiatives, I’m very well credentialed (trust me on this) and in a certain niche of AWS, I was considered one of the industry experts at the time (again trust me).
But when randomly spamming job boards on a lark in 2023, I heard nothing.
That was always a plan B while I was waiting for what ended up being three offers via my network and one by reaching out to a company who specialized in my niche of AWS.
I’m not bragging, I am old. I should have a network and credentials.
Yes, we recently posted for an entry/mid level position and we got 1800 applications in a few days. It’s impossible to filter the list, I spent several hours to see how feasible it was and after getting through maybe 150 applications I gave up. We’re a small team, we don’t have the resources to cut through the noise without just blanket rejecting people. There doesn’t need to be a board that vets jobs, there needs to be a board that vets candidates and makes it easier for companies find their ideal candidate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem
How do you vet mid level and entry developers? I know that sounds like a dumb question. But I only expect a mid level developer especially enterprise developers to turn well defined requirements into code. The bar is especially low in the age of AI. One is basically interchangeable to another. I have only interviewed senior level developers - ie people who I expect to operate on a higher level of scope, impact and ambiguity.
Those are easy to filter out via a few behavioral questions.
Do what everyone is doing (for better or worse): feed those into a CLI LLM, have it give you a csv of the top 20 candidates based on some criteria, manually review those.
What are the top 20 candidates if you just need a random “full stack developer”? All of their resumes look exactly the same.
99% of the engineers out there are generic ones (including myself)… and most of us are working.
If you take away my AWS account and my ability to “add on to what Becky said” and “look at things from a 1000 foot view”, I am a “generic developer” and was one for 25 years.
That doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that “generic developers” are a dime a dozen and it’s hard to stand out from the crowd using an ATS. I just said I had the same issue when experimenting with ATS’s.
Jesus christ, AWS has niches
This shouldn't surprise me, knowledge of a code base is a competitive advantage. But there is just something depressing about it. Maybe it being closed source and you having to learn it by being burned by undocumented behavior? Please tell more
It’s Amazon Connect - a popular hosted call center solution ported to AWS from Amazon Retail. There are people and companies that do nothing but Amazon Connect. But that’s all they know. I’m a developer first with well rounded experience with AWS. It’s just the niche that helps me stand out a little when I was looking for a job and now internally where I work for a third party consulting company. But you can throw me at almost any AWS related project and I’ve probably done something related over the past 8 years.
I talked a little bit about Connect here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47241412
I worked at AWS ProServe / their internal consulting department - full time blue badge RSU earning employee - and I was one of the highest contributors to a popular at the time open source “AWS Solution” around Connect and I had my own open source projects published under AWS’s open source GitHub organization.
BTW, I would never use the “solution” now. There are a lot better ways to do it post gen AI.
The thing was, it was years before AWS introduced APIs around Connect and even longer before they have CloudFormation support. I was the first to use those APIs at scale for clients and found and reported bugs to the team while I was there.
Hiring is so broken that this just isn't enough. We really need an IETF RFC for open positions. A full-blown TCP-like protocol for an open position, with TTL, SYN ACK handshakes, and data encryption. Anything else is half-assing it. I'm only half joking. It's pretty bad today.
What makes a job verified in this case? You can easily verify a firm exists, but that’s not really the critical part. The question “is this a ghost job with no intention to be filled” is the real struggle.
Good point. Verifying that a company exists is relatively easy, but confirming that the role is actually open and actively being hired for is definitely harder. I was thinking verification could include confirming the recruiter’s identity and requiring employers to periodically confirm that the position is still active. Ghost jobs are definitely an important challenge.
> confirming the recruiter’s identity and requiring employers to periodically confirm that the position is still active.
If a position is only listed due to a requirement, and is already basically guaranteed to someone making an internal transfer, knowing the recruiter's identity and having a manager pinky-swear the job offer is real does nothing.
Add a visible count of how many verified applicants got verified jobs at the verified business. Higher count increases confidence.
That definitely makes things harder. Roles posted for internal transfers or compliance reasons are tricky because they may never have been intended for external candidates. Maybe verification would need signals showing that the role is actually open to external applicants. I wonder if something like an “externally open role” label would help.
Cyrpto had some interesting takes on these sort of problems that we haven't really applied more broadly.
The way I'd design a job board is require the applicant to escrow X and the job poster to escrow Y*X. Y is is the trust ratio. Given a bad experience, either the side can 'burn' the other and send both escrowed amounts to charity. An okay trust ratio might be 10, meaning they'll give you 10:1 burn ratio. A good one might be 100 or 1000. At that point they are essentially handing you a big stick to beat them with if they misbehave.
This would entirely eliminate spam and ghost jobs - suddenly everyone would be magically really responsive and polite.
You have to think through the applicant issue. As a hiring manager every time I post a job i get hundreds of applicants and most are not viable for different reasons. A verified listing does nothing to help me deal with the influx of low quality and fake applicants.
Curious - are there not good tools for filtering through applications? there must be a lot of llm related offerings
There's two sides to this. Companies need to be able to make sure they're able to locate (and not miss) viable candidates. But job-seekers need to know there's a legitimate company and an actual job. There are many job scams out there, especially for entry level, low-skill jobs.
In my early days, I once went through three interviews for a small "start up." On the third round, the founder admitted he couldn't pay me in anything but "equity" even though I specifically asked about funding and compensation on the first interview. (I got a very early "Craigs List" to pull the job listing--with an personal reply from Craig Newmark--and the "employer" settled with me for several thousand after I sent a demand letter and filed a claim in Santa Clara County small claims court for fraud.)
Verified how?
The poster has an account? No
The poster has confirmed an email address? No
The poster has a confirmed email address that is associable to the business? Maybe
The poster has a confirmed email address that is associable to the business and their name is verifiable as HR/Hiring Manager/Someone in a legitimate position to post this offer? Sure
Has a registered business that's been around longer than 6 months.
Has a confirmed business phone number, called by a human that verifies another human is on the other end.
Has a confirmed business address (mail them the confirmation code).
Has a website that's been around longer then 6 months.
Has a Google Maps location that's been around longer than 6 months.
What’s an example of a job scam? How does the scammer benefits from it? I have never heard of this, just looking to learn more about it.
For one, it’s a form of personal information harvesting. People tend to apply with non-burner accounts
and I assume the value here would be some data broker deal? feels odd to me still
Otta in the UK (now eaten by the inexplicably-named Welcome to the Jungle) used to have a very involved vetting process during company onboarding, and I could verify that it was a great service as both a candidate and a hiring manager. To replicate what you want ("every listing is verified") there's no silver bullet but a good vetting process like that goes a long way.
Another site I like is cord.com, which seems to prioritise companies where recruiters are active on that website, I've had a good experience with that one as well, as you get to chat with an actual recruiter in a matter of hours or days.
the job-to-be-done is connecting the job to the right person. Not job verification.
I built a mobile app dev team in fintech years ago. I remember one person was literally selling their house and moving and was looking for a job. Call it luck, serendipitous, what you will, but the "connection" was made at the right time, right place.
How do we solve that problem more effectively? Cuz right now it's a roll of the dice, constant linkedin messages, etc.
https://www.news.google.com/search?q=ghost+jobs - ghost jobs are a real problem - I don't know if this is the solution.
Probably not, as you’d essentially be performing the function of a recruiter, but not providing the ability for applicants to skip the initial steps of the hiring process by talking to you. Recruiters already list their open jobs in board-like software.
what's the value add ?
what are you offering to candidates - a better interview experience (been tried before etc, those companies closed)
you want to solve a problem, however you are trying solve the problem at a wrong abstraction level -
the problem with the tech market hiring is a coordination problem
I see what you mean about it being a coordination problem. Do you think the main issue is that job boards create too much noise — hundreds of applications — instead of helping companies and candidates find better matches? If that's the case, what kind of system do you think would improve that coordination?
Imo it might be worthwhile creating a job board that solves the “company-side” issue with the current recruitment process where 200 people will spam AI generated slop CV to every post that opens up. Some kind of account coupled with a ratelimit and you should already deliver some value to people recruiting.
To a large degree, the problem with job boards is job boards are a two sided market for lemons
On the one hand, applicants are applicant who cannot find a job through people they know and the companies are companies who cannot find candidates through people they know Good jobs and good employees come through relationships and you cannot automate relationships.
Relationships are hard. Good luck.
It exists. Linkedin seems to have such jobs.
That’s true, platforms like LinkedIn try to verify companies. What I’m more curious about is whether people would value deeper verification of the actual job posting itself, not just the company.
Hmm. That is a hard one. Not sure how you verify it is a genuine job or the JD is accurate. Id like it but not sure it is possible.
No, I don't use job boards.
I want a job board that can filter companies like ATS filters candidates. I want to know salary, benefits, equity comp, tech stack, and workflow practices like CI, test suite time, test coverage, meetings per week, etc.
That’s an interesting point. Transparency about things like salary, tech stack, and engineering practices would probably make job boards much more useful. It sounds like verification alone might not be enough without better information about the role.
The answer is yes, and I speak for everybody. People use job boards anyway, why not use another one with the +1 that, at least, you won't get scammed.
Everyone likes to pretend this and that, "I wouldn't do it", "what problem do you solve", etc. I've published many jobs and they all come like hyenas fighting over scraps.
Don't listen to them, just build the thing; they'll use it, they need the bread, lmao.