This response (and how you responded to it) really illustrates, to me, the problem with hiring in the first place when placing those hiring choices in the hands of engineers that don't have hiring skills.
> What's the painful part?
The parts that I outlined.
> That it could have been much more terse but you ended up having to read the whole thing?
Nope.
> I'm not even sure I'm correctly interpreting your comment
Yup.
> but I definitely think your comment is lacking enough information to convey your point accurately
Right, so if it was an issue for YOU, one good choice in the future would be to engage me in a discussion. Ask a simple follow up question.
"Hey, I didn't understand your comment, what did you mean by that? I'm interested in finding out more..."
This illustrates the state of hiring in our industry. Snap, terse, misunderstandings without exploring the idea that maybe the burden is on you to get some clairity if YOU don't understand something.
"Hey, I didn't understand those lines of code, what did you indend to with that? I'm interested in finding out more..."
Typically it falls inline with that the author of this article posted, he passes out an "open-ended" coding task as a pre-interview, get's something back, most likely "replied with well wishes" and moved on. They didn't have the time, desire, skillsets, etc... to identify and engage.
> Right, so if it was an issue for YOU, one good choice in the future would be to engage me in a discussion. Ask a simple follow up question.
"What's the painful part?" was the first thing I wrote.
> This illustrates the state of hiring in our industry. Snap, terse, misunderstandings without exploring the idea that maybe the burden is on you to get some clairity if YOU don't understand something.
I explained that I had a hard time understanding what your point was, I explained that it was because of your lack of explanation (you could even say it was terse, which is why I'm surprised you level that accusation at me), and I asked you to clarify.
Perhaps you're offended that I said I found it painful? I made sure to note I was only using that phrasing because you did. My purpose in doing so was to note that it's not a very constructive way to criticize. If you did find yourself ion any way offended by that, please consider how you originally presented your position, and whether that was a constructive way to do so.
> This illustrates the state of hiring in our industry.
This exchange? Maybe it does! I did everything you criticize me for here, yet you somehow failed to see it. I think perhaps there is a lesson here somewhere.
I'm going to go out of my way to apologize, as my original reply to you was probably a bit snarkier than called for. At the time, I thought it warranted, because my misinterpretation of your comment (of what I thought the most likely meaning of it was, that is) lead me to view it as fairly snarky itself, when it doesn't appear that accurate, and I intended to lightly reflect that in a way I hoped would illuminate what I saw as the problem with that approach. Obviously, that doesn't make much sense if that wasn't what you were doing.
That said, I do think some of my criticisms hold weight. That is, that there wasn't enough actual content from you in your message to easily discern what you were trying to accomplish. I don't think I was the only one in that position. I did attempt to ask you what you meant, and that was genuine, I just also included my reply for what I thought he most likely purpose, which turned out to be incorrect. I'm not sure if you took that as sarcasm, or as a method to bait you, but it wasn't.
Here's to hoping we both come away from this slightly better than we entered, and with little or no resentment. :)
> Here's to hoping we both come away from this slightly better than we entered
That's very funny to me :-)
> my original reply to you was probably a bit snarkier than called for
> At the time, I thought it warranted
> my misinterpretation of your comment
> what I thought the most likely meaning of it was
> and I intended to lightly reflect that in a way I hoped would illuminate what I saw as the problem with that approach
Wow.
I quoted a few sentences that were painful to me, and out of that came all of this?
A snarky reply, that you felt was warranted, followed up by you trying to educate (illuminate) me on why you saw it as a problem.
Throwing in some "social proof" for why all of that was okay:
> I don't think I was the only one in that position
Along with justifying most of your approach:
> That said, I do think some of my criticisms hold weight.
> there wasn't enough actual content from you
> to easily discern what you were trying to accomplish
Emphasizing how big of a person you truly are by putting in extra effort:
> Throwing in some "social proof" for why all of that was okay:
More just to explain what led to it, but you can interpret it how you like.
> Emphasizing how big of a person you truly are by putting in extra effort:
Actually, just trying to live up to the standard I set for myself, but don't always achieve. I chose an idiom that might have implied something I didn't intend. By "going out of my way" I was really just referring to how I was replying to myself, and not waiting for your reply to me, so try to short circuit that wait, and express my feelings even if you chose not to reply but still felt negatively about the exchange.
It is possible to apologize for how you did something, but not for why. This isn't some attempt and stealing a "win" in an argument through meta-analysis, it was just me deciding I had been uncharitable, and deciding to do something about it.
I'm sorry it sounds like you couldn't accept this in the spirit it was meant. It's probably not productive for us to continue further on this topic. I hope you have a good night.
He started his post with a clarifying question and said he wasn't sure if he was interpreting things correctly. So from what I can read, he's already done what you're suggesting he do.
Or was the issue that it wasn't asked in sufficiently conversational prose, which is the primary difference I can see between what he wrote and what you suggest?
This response (and how you responded to it) really illustrates, to me, the problem with hiring in the first place when placing those hiring choices in the hands of engineers that don't have hiring skills.
> What's the painful part?
The parts that I outlined.
> That it could have been much more terse but you ended up having to read the whole thing?
Nope.
> I'm not even sure I'm correctly interpreting your comment
Yup.
> but I definitely think your comment is lacking enough information to convey your point accurately
Right, so if it was an issue for YOU, one good choice in the future would be to engage me in a discussion. Ask a simple follow up question.
"Hey, I didn't understand your comment, what did you mean by that? I'm interested in finding out more..."
This illustrates the state of hiring in our industry. Snap, terse, misunderstandings without exploring the idea that maybe the burden is on you to get some clairity if YOU don't understand something.
"Hey, I didn't understand those lines of code, what did you indend to with that? I'm interested in finding out more..."
Typically it falls inline with that the author of this article posted, he passes out an "open-ended" coding task as a pre-interview, get's something back, most likely "replied with well wishes" and moved on. They didn't have the time, desire, skillsets, etc... to identify and engage.