I just re-did my resume using indeed.com's resume uploader. It gives you a nice clean formatted resume that you can share publicly, export to .pdf, or email. I don't really see a point in using latex, with these new tools available.
I think linkedin has a resume upload and maybe branchout does as well if you are more of the social networking type.
I've been using nicedog for my micro-framework needs.
After looking over it, this is a really framework. There really isn't too much that I would throw out to make it smaller, except maybe the curl wrapping class.
A couple of things that would be nice are:
1) if your Controller classes had some state
forcing them to be static like you do means that there could be a lot of duplicated code between similar actions
2) if you had a 'layout' template that could be set that would wrap the results of the actions. Maybe this already exists, I just couldn't find it.
Its very clear that you intend to not do any kinds of magic, so I can see why you left a lot of things out that a lot of other frameworks have. Maybe that is why you don't have a layout wrapper template.
You're right about the curl wrapper. It's actually got it's own repository https://github.com/jmathai/php-multi-curl so I should remove it from here (it's an artifact really).
1) I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I handle most of the code duplication in libraries so my static controller methods are usually really small (<15 lines). Let me know if I misunderstood your point.
2) You're right about the layout wrapper being a bit "heavy" for this framework. You can nest layouts to your heart's desire but the views are 100% decoupled from the actions. You can, in fact, use the the template module without using the route module. Not that you'd want to :).
As a programmer at a fairly high traffic site, SEO is a way of life for us and we always think of SEO implications. The more difficult problem we have lately is the SEO vs user experience trade off. We dislike whenever SEO is chosen over the user experience.
The biggest misconception about SEO is that its intent is to be spammy. SEO is in fact directed towards more effective communication with search engines. Using web analytics, and intelligence we optimize content to be more direct towards users, and search engines by using keywords etc that users are searching for. We're basically improving communications just like quality CRM does only with search engines, and users. Link farms are highly transparent and easily flagged by Google. They have extremely sophisticated algorithms to determine who the spammers are.
I completely agree Trey - I'd say that over the last 5 years, I've almost never (maybe once) seen a case where SEO had to interfere with or detract from good user experience. The engines have actually done a great job making this an extreme edge case.
I've seen several instances where in order to make really nice JS/AJAX UI interactions and flows also SEO friendly we had to do a lot of extra work. However that work also makes us accessible, so it's not the end of the world....
I have yet to see a PM that actually performed PM duties that yielded a net positive for a company.
If the PM doesn't have authority over developers the position devolves to a glorified QA position so that they are actually doing something useful.
If they are given authority over developers they add a level of politics and stratification that ends up being a distraction to a team that otherwise works well together. Software developers have a lot of power to affect change and are generally anti-authority. Keeping an organization structure flatter seems to make software developers more productive.
Given the choice I would avoid having a PM and just hire more intelligent software engineers. A quality QA person can give you the same effect without the mess.
Note that I am separating project manager duties away from product manager duties.
"Probably the reason people expect feedback about why they were rejected is that they implicitly think of this as like a grade in a class. But a test where only a fixed number of applicants can pass regardless of the average quality is not a grade in that sense."
Actually, I disagree with the premise of this statement. I don't want feedback on why I was rejected, I want feedback on my product. Yes, I can see that it is very nuanced and difficult for you to say which idea/product is better than another, and you have your own business reasons for making those decisions. I don't think anyone really expects you to disclose those reasons, and even if you did it would be completely subjective and would just lead to arguments. However, given that, you're only addressing why you don't comment on the relative strengths of the applications and not why you don't give feedback on any individual product/idea.
I got a no as well and my feeling is that the entire process is pointless for an applicant without any feedback. I'm not bitter about being rejected, but going into this I expected at least some amount of commentary, and not 5 hits on my site and a form rejection letter. Maybe I should have tapered my expectations or the website should have been more clear about saying that if we don't pick you, you won't hear anything from us.
Learn to love rejection, to thrive off of it. when people say no - or, even worse, give lukewarm support - they're saying they don't get it. Only one thing for you to do: prove it. Keep hearing no, keep moving on, keep building, keep getting stronger, keep doing what you do. Pain is good, pain makes you stronger. This - this industry/community/dream/passion/life - will never be easy. It's going to hurt and suck and make you want to quit (or die), so be ready to cry and bleed. Yeah, learn to take a punch - but that sure won't be enough. You need to learn to love it.
This isn't about them, the naysayers and the unbelievers. This is about you and your conviction to build something great and lasting. Every NO is more than a test; every NO is a challenge. So what are you going to do about it?
Given how many applications they receive, it'd probably be impractical to give feedback to each and every one - but the biggest reason is probably that doing so would open them up to arguing and disagreement from those rejected.
I think the value comes from the application form itself. If you didn't feel 100% confident in some of the answers, they might be points for improvement.
