How to Get a Job as a Developer in Less Than Six Months - <AUTHOR> http://www.learnwithjeff.com/2012/08/21/how-to-get-a-job-as-a-developer-in-less-than-six-months/ <comment><USER2> It's really frustrating reading all the negative comments here. What happened to positive support for people in our community? This guy had a passion, worked his butt off and got a good result... I'm sure he'll go on to many more good things in the future. We should applaud and celebrate this, not knock down how he's not a senior developer yet. Congratulations Jeff!!

<comment><USER3> It is great to see these posts and I absolutely applaud him for what he has achieved.

Programming, like any other profession takes time to master, how would you react to "How to become a brain surgeon in less than 6 months"?

If you were to have a brain surgery would you choose the guy who was unemployed 6 months ago, or the other one who has been performing these surgeries for the last 20 years, every day?

My point, comparing the two, is to highlight that both of these professions affect us, one a bit more dramatically than the other.

If every medical student got to be a brain surgeon in less than 6 months we would have many more tragic accidents costing lives or making someone permanently disabled but there are many barriers in front of them that prevents this kind of thing and gives the patient some confidence.

I argue that there should be something similar in place in the field of development/programming.

In the same way that I would prefer the more experienced surgeon, I'd prefer the websites I use to be programmed by more experienced programmers, how about the cars we use? the airplanes?

<comment><USER4> The comparison you draw is intellectually dishonest.

Many of the articles submitted to HN that frame programming as a craft get a lot of support. And just as traditional crafts are taught through apprenticeships, I believe that the same holds true for programming. Software shops can easily find a place for enthusiastic candidates with aptitude and commitment (as demonstrated by the OP). There are plenty of tasks that the new apprentice could help with until fully trained. This is how bricklayers (a fairer comparison than brain surgeon, you'll agree) are trained, and you don't see many houses falling down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So, there have been a lot of negative comments and I understand where they are coming from. I will try to address them as best I can.

"Seeing a self-taught guy with 6 months coding experience writing software at a medical lab testing facility makes me a bit nervous."

I am working mostly on internal systems and when I venture outside of that I have my own branch write thorough tests and have multiple people check my code.

"I shudder to think of the quality of his code and the projects he or people like him are let loose on."

My code is pretty shitty. But, I know how bad it is, I know my limitations. I work long days and more after work to improve. I am not pretending, I am learning.

"Very fancy, but I am a software engineer, or programmer, as you prefer it to be called. Engineer means that I studied 5 years at university (Bs + Ms), and I know what I have learnt there, and I wouldn't want to work with someone that doesn't know about algorithms, algebra (it helps you understand a lot of things and opens your minid), compilers, statistics, concurrent programming, software architecture (1 full year course), UI designing, networks, databases, etc, etc."

I disagree that amount of time in a University is what allows one to become a programmer, it is the skills and knowledge acquired at the school. I didn't have that option, I needed a job in under six months or I was going to have to get a job doing something I didn't love. I worked hard and got the job. Am I a master? Nope. But, I have put myself in a position to become one with continued hard work.

I think that is all of them. Many people glossed over this line, "When I started this search I thought I would be scrubbing toilets in exchange for nightly code reviews."

The fact that I am not doing that is a mixture of my willingness to clean toilets to learn the craft I love and a market desperation for developers.

<comment><USER6> I too am largely self-taught, though I took a much more convoluted path to get where I am today. I lucked out several years ago and found an employer willing to take a chance on me in spite of zero real-world experience and incomplete schooling. It seems to have worked out pretty well so far!

You know you're still green, and I respect that. Everyone has to be at some point. I don't care if they went to school—I've seen people come out of respectable CS programs not knowing a damn thing about actually writing software.

I've also seen people with plenty of experience—people who should really know better by now—still code trivially avoidable vulnerabilities and make other silly mistakes. School and experience are both lost on someone not really willing to take learning seriously, who already believes he's an expert.

<comment><USER7> Really, we're all self-taught. The practice of development is so far removed from college courses as to make us all essentially even at first hire.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> While I absolutely applaud the effort and tenacity of this individual, at the same time, I feel a substantial amount of trepidation regarding the current state of the tech / start-up industry.

Virtually every hot new startup I see on blogs, it just takes a few minutes of basic penetration testing to find gaping security holes. Everything from simple XSS or CSRF to blatant leaking of sensitive user data. Obviously he was hired at a "junior" level but I've interviewed plenty of "senior" candidates who, 5 years ago, would have been "junior" with their skillset and this guy would probably be a coffee-fetching intern. We keep lowering the bar (due to the crazy imbalance of talent vs. jobs right now) in hiring practices and the long-term impact of this practice has me worried.

On the flip-side, seeing all of these amazing ideas being brought to life and fostering such a strong sense of innovation is amazing to see.

<comment><USER5> When I was hired it was with the _very_ clear understanding that I was to be taught a lot and I was being hired for my desire to learn. Sometimes if you can't find a qualified candidate you have to train them.

<comment><USER9> Yes, and that "have to train them" is the truth that's missing from a lot of these conversations: all these startups want "rock star" devs but they don't want to invest anything in training. But no matter what the skill level of your devs, companies should be investing in lots of training anyway to stay competitive.

<comment><USER10> This is a more pervasive problem than just the tech industry. Many industries in the U.S. have limited to no training and no mentor programs. Training is perceived as an easy cost to eliminate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a nice story but there are some hidden issues around here. The ones that want to get into programming should be aware of these:

It's not an easy trip.. it's not just six months... it's a lifetime. Yes you might get a job in 6 months but then you will have to work even harder to keep that job and to be in the game. You will never stop learning... you will have to constantly adapt yourself to the new technologies otherwise you will end up being the guy hated by everyone for your crappy code that's a pain to be maintained.

Yes you might learn Ruby or any other programming language and you can solve problems and build stuff... so basically you can do your job.... but there's more to programming. You should not just read a ruby book and learn the syntax and hey presto you are a developer. You should put some time in learning how software works, learning some algorithms and so on. It's not about one programming language, it's about programming in general. Programming languages are just tools we use to achieve a goal. For example, you can't be a car mechanic by learning how to use a wrench.. you need to know how to use more tools and, the most important thing, learn how to fix an issue using the most appropriate tool.

<comment><USER12> To be honest, I think this is true for _every_ profession, not just programming.

If you want to stay on top, you have to continually improve your game.

Or you can be that guy in the corner who got left behind when the factory tanked and he suddenly found himself unemployable.

<comment><USER11> Yes this is true for every profession... but in programming it seems to be a more crucial thing as the programming world is changing and evolving faster than any other industry.. just think about what programmers used to do 10 years ago .. and what we do now... think how computers change in 10 years... (my mobile phone is smarter/faster than my state of the art PC from 10 years ago)

The progression rate is astonishing and we must not forget that we still have to learn the basics in order to be good at what we do...

<comment><USER13> I agree - software/web development is relentless in its changing and evolving technologies and tool sets. I don't think there are many other professions where the tools available change so quickly and often.

<comment><USER14> Totally, but that's kind of the reason the industry is exciting. I get bored writing the same piece of code twice, I'm not sure I'd survive in any other kind of job where I'm doing the same thing day in/day out. I LOVE the fact I still get excited when I learn something new or find a new way of doing something I've done several times before!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm unable to access the article but I'm very surprised by many of the comments in this thread. A large number of articles are posted each month belittling (at the very least questioning the value) of non-technical founders. These and similar posts are then filled with sermons advocating individuals learn to code.

Apparently, OP took these statements to heart, put in the effort/time, and what does he get as a result? Derision. What is this community about if it isn't about personal and financial growth coupled with creation?

Perhaps in his post, OP makes some grandiose claim about being a master programmer, okay fine, cut him down. But I suspect it is far less egotistical and merely his way of celebrating a small victory brought about by what is so often advocated: That learning to code really is a way to improve your life.

</comment><comment><USER16> Great to see that. There's plenty of "you should learn how to code" posts, Codecademy, Treehouse etc, but there are very few case studies of people who seemingly A) used these tools and/or B) actually ended up being able to wing it learning to code mid-to-late-stage in their career. Not sure if this post really qualifies as either of those, as well. If there's more examples of this that I'm missing, please let me know.

<comment><USER17> Not really a case study but my sister went from never having coded, middle- school math teacher to junior consultant at ThoughtWorks in 5 months via DevBootCamp. TW may be a bit unusual though in that they are willing to train you for a year before actually making money on you.

<comment><USER18> Our industry needs a lot more of this. Many industries expect that new hires are in apprenticeship mode and will be learning on the job. In our industry people are expected to walk in and know exactly what and how to do things.

<comment><USER19> I don't think that's true at all - every organization I've worked with has planned for a 1-2 month ramp-up program. Generally you start off doing trivial bugfixes until the codebase makes sense and move on from there. Hell, learning on the job extends past this phase and is essentially neverending.

You just need to have enough background to make it through the ramp-up phase and start teaching yourself. That holds true whether you went to college or are self-taught.

<comment><USER18> 1-2 months is still nothing compared to other skilled professions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I got some of these same bitter, angry, defensive responses when I posted my "how I became a developer" post a while back. I dunno what it is about programmers here but for some reason "programmer" is considered some sacred title you have to earn. Whatever.

<comment><USER21> Right on! The nerve of some programmers to think their profession is in the same league with the big boys that need college and university degrees! Who do they think they are, some kind of scientists or engineers?

</sarcasm>

<comment><USER14> I know plenty of programmers without degrees, I was extremely surprised some of them didn't because they were so bloody good! The thing is with having an IT degree, this industry moves so quick how much of what you learnt is still relevant (aside from the OO and SQL)... You have to be CONSTANTLY re-learning new tech otherwise you're not going to be a very good/relevant programmer for long!

<comment><USER22> Obviously you can't stop learning, but the thing is that by obtaining an IT degree you'll often learn fundamental things you wouldn't learn otherwise.

<comment><USER20> You're projecting. I have no degree. I've taken the time to teach myself the fundamentals. Dueling anecdotes here obviously but we all know plenty of people with CS degrees who are worthless when it comes to tackling a problem, and plenty of people without who are credits to their profession.

Programmers program. If someone programs, they're a programmer. My daughter uses scratch to write software. She's 8, the software is not sophisticated but it's software. She's a programmer.

<comment><USER21> This sounds as serious as claiming your daughter is a civil engineer because she builds LEGO buildings or she's a biologist because she knows to feed her goldfish. At the end of the day we need some terminology that distinguishes the guy that took a semester to learn MS Access from the one that took 4 years to study CS in university.

It's an unfortunate common theme in HN but I can't think off the top of my head other white collar professions with such contempt for degrees and formal education. Are all the other fields doing it wrong or is programming so much easier than everything else that justifies the constant pat on the back for roll-you-own education?

<comment><USER14> But I've met plenty of people who come out of uni with a CS degree and don't know squat. I totally get the distinction, and there needs to be a distinction between someone playing around, someone who is a junior and someone who is truly brilliant. But it doesn't require a degree to reach that top level.

I only took _some_ CS modules at uni, I learnt everything I know either on the job or off my own back, including OOP, JavaScript/OOJS, advanced HTML and CSS. They didn't teach you the difference between browsers either (I started back in IE4/Netscape days).

What this guys daughter decides that at 18 years old (and now having programmed for 10 years) it's not worth going to uni because a) it'll cost too much and b) might as well get a 4 year head start over everyone else. So by that time she'll have 14 years experience. I think that would count for a hell of a lot more than a formal education. There's nothing magical about programming that a google search will not reveal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Awesome write up; thanks for sharing. I'm a self-taught developer too, although it took me more than 6 months to get my first job.

One technique I'd add to your list is, "Find online programming communities and take part in them." I learned an incredible amount from development- oriented mailing lists over the years, and I still do.

</comment><comment><USER24> I should probably do a write-up about how a year later I still do not have a job doing development. Jeff touches on a few things I am pretty sure I would do differently.

I think the most important thing is working on visible projects and seeing them through to completion, as opposed to acquiring more depth through study.

Additionally, I would have went with Ruby instead of Python. Python jobs and internships seem to fall more within an area where people demand a CS degree background, at least in this region. With RoR the demand tilts heavily toward webdev, which doesn't require 4 years of CS to be productive.

I definitely still think it's possible for motivated and tech-savvy people to do what Jeff has done.

<comment><USER25> I'm debating whether to learn Python or Ruby. And the initial post as well as this one has me leaning towards Ruby despite all the good things that have been said about Python.

Are there non CS majors out there that picked up Python as a first language and had doors opened for them?

<comment><USER26> I majored in Economics and taught myself Python starting my Sophomore year of college. I am now gainfully employed in a job creating modeles (economic and otherwise, essentially R&D) for the rail industry. My day to day activities consists of writing Python code, and my ability to rapidly prototype ideas with Python was one of the major reasons I was hired.

That being said, don't debate, just pick one and go with it. For every person who tells you that Ruby is better at X, or Python is better at Y, you'll find another person doing X in Python or Y in Ruby. The best advice I can give you is to find a book/tutorial that works with your learning style and go for it. Then grab a fun project as soon as possible and work on it.

<comment><USER24> If one is starting to learn on their own in their 2nd or 3rd year in college, I think Python is definitely a good place to start. You will have more doors still open to you as a college student as far as internships go.

I also think people who are still in college might as well take the intro classes so they can take the more advanced data structures and algorithms classes, in addition to extra maths.

It's also good to be around other people who are studying CS while in university. The networking benefits shouldn't be underestimated. And making friends with people who are also passionate about the topic is great for many other reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> You really did a great job! I took longer than you, but I followed a similar path. In hindsight, I can't imagine taking any other path, its been a blast! If I could emphasize one of your points, it would be to MAKE stuff, don't pick out problems out of thin air, MAKE stuff you want! I really happy for you, and I'm really glad you wrote this. I haven't agreed with someone so much in a while! Also, I would reinforce your point about git and github, that is as absolute must in my experience. It is your resume and one of your main tools.

Edit: Dont forget about IRC!!!!

<comment><USER28> Genuine question: what does IRC do for getting a job other than taking up time?

<comment><USER29> I've been using IRC to talk to people who built some of the tools my company uses in our technology stack. This has been an amazing opportunity and a learning experience. You also learn a lot when you hang around and help more novice users with their questions.

I'd say if you don't start talking OT in a IRC channel dedicated to a piece of software/tech, it has a direct positive influence on your skills, which in turn directly influences your job seeking chances. Also, you can meet prospective employers that way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The problem with self-learning is one of discipline and motivation. I started a learn-to-code startup and iterated 7 times (now profitable). It's nearly impossible to keep someone engaged without having a human involved. When I think back to how I learned to program, it wasn't alone. I surrounded myself with CS students. And I had a lot of intrinsic motivation before I started.

Join a program like Dev Bootcamp. You'll save an enormous amount of time by working alongside other people with similar goals, and the social pressure will keep you on your toes.

<comment><USER31> Have you been through Dev Bootcamp? Did you find it immensely useful? Did it help with getting hired?

I ask because it has quite a large upfront cost... perfectly reasonable if it really is that great.

<comment><USER32> Disclaimer: I advise Dev Bootcamp.

Here are three student reflections on Dev Bootcamp:

\- [http://douglascalhoun.tumblr.com/post/26059106238/beautiful-...](http://douglascalhoun.tumblr.com/post/26059106238/beautiful- friend-the-end)

\- [http://newbietoruby.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/devbootcamp- ref...](http://newbietoruby.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/devbootcamp-reflection/)

\- [http://mehulkar.tumblr.com/post/18897643140/devbootcamp- test...](http://mehulkar.tumblr.com/post/18897643140/devbootcamp-testimonial)

And here is a Quora thread with a lot of relevant responses: [http://www.quora.com/Ruby-on-Rails/Should-I-quit-my-job- and-...](http://www.quora.com/Ruby-on-Rails/Should-I-quit-my-job-and-go-to- Dev-Bootcamp).

Please feel free to ask any other questions!

<comment><USER33> I have a question:

I've tried to learn Ruby and don't think it is for me. Too hard to deal with setting up my environment and the language just does not come easily to me.

Can you recommend a program like yours that is of very high quality that focuses on Python, JavaScript (possibly with HTML/CSS) or Objective-C?

<comment><USER34> What problems did you have with the Ruby environment? I went through this several months ago, and maybe can help you get set up, if you're still interested in Ruby.

<comment><USER33> Couldn't get passed running rvm in my terminal on OS X =/

<comment><USER35> ...then don't use rvm..there is a version of ruby that comes pre-installed on your Mac, use it. Get one ruby book and read through it, don't worry if you don't understand everything the first time, by the second time you read it, things will make more sense. Also work through the examples in the book.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Seeing a self-taught guy with 6 months coding experience writing software at a medical lab testing facility makes me a bit nervous. The need for proper security in that area is (IMO) even more important than for credit card and financial processing, and I just don't trust a guy with only 6 months experience to do it correctly. Nothing against him, but I think it's too complicated of a subject to learn in 6 months with no real world experience.

<comment><USER37> I almost completely disagree.

I've mentored guys who were greener than grass who grasped things like input sanitation intuitively. I've also worked with guys with 5+ years experience who thought this:

$foo = $_GET['foo']

Was input sanitation.

I would posit that, because of the vastly different quality needs, understandings, and valuations inherent in the industries that our industry touches (namely, all of them), it's unlikely that you're going to see any strong correlation between age/experience and code quality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I don't mean to be a mood killer but that has to be taken with a grain of salt. Ruby/Python/Perl are awesome language for beginner because it abstract so much that they think they know how to code after a day, and when they have to learn a new language like C they are completely lost and produce spaghetti code. That might be ok for web development where you can hack here and there (with JS/CSS/HTML) but I really challenge someone that follows that guide to be a embedded device developer or a software engineer using C or even C# or Java.

Anyway good read but again it should be really emphasize that this is an ok road for a web developer.

<comment><USER39> Why must all software developers be able to operate in all domains? What other industry has a requirement such as this?

There's more than enough work out there, why must a web dev know or care how to twiddle bits, or vice versa?

<comment><USER11> It's not about one language and one issue... it's about being able to solve problems regardless of tools given (i.e. programming language)

We don't code, we don't write code... we solve problems with code... there's why.

And if you're not eager to learn all of these... you should think about a change in careers

<comment><USER39> Problem 1: I can't get this damn div to float to the right of my content.

Problem 2: My network card firmware stops acknowledging commands from the driver after 3 days of high utiliization.

If you think you would assign the same person to "solve these problems with code", you're being silly. People specialize and gain expertise in their areas. Use the right tool for the job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm an unemployed programmer with 10 years of experience and I've been looking for a (part-time) job for less than six months. I keep telling myself it would be great if instead of looking for a job I could spend all that time just coding. I have plenty of ideas. I've avoided that because it feels like running away from my responsibilities, but this post makes me think again.

On the other hand the situation seems to be more difficult where I live (Geneva, Switzerland). I've always been so enthusiastic about programming that I want to encourage everyone to learn it, but today it sounds like bad career advice around here.

<comment><USER41> You can always sign up to odesk and/or vworker and pick up some paid coding tasks there. You might even end up working full time (I have).

<comment><USER40> I've been thinking about odesk, but didn't know vworker. Good to know it can work, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I wholeheartedly agree with you. I have been learning code about a year and now I have a part time job doing it.

The key thing is to _demonstrate aptitude._ Period. You obviously have done this. Also, eagerness to learn is a huge huge selling point -- because apparently you do that throughout your programming career. But the biggest thing is to demonstrate an ability to code. You might not know everything a university graduate does, but then again, I hear a lot of the people coming out of university aren't very good programmers right now. =\ Not really sure.

University teaches you a lot of foundational stuff, but if you have someone willing to work with you a little, you'll learn the same stuff (and likely already have a little of it under your belt).

Anyway, kudos to you for sticking it out and being aggressive. Great example.

</comment><comment><USER43>
        Work your ass off (...) So, in order to make the kind of
        strides I made, expect to spend at least 10 hours a day,
        six days a week dedicated to programming activities.

Important point is that you have to love those 10 hours. I'm pretty sure that if you do it just with the end goal in mind, it won't work. You mention this, but I think it could be emphasised.

<comment><USER44> Agree. I've been there. Those need to be 10 hours you planned on being only 6.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Can anyone outside the U.S. - preferably in Europe - share similar stories, if any?

I find that the U.S. has so many cool ways to work your way into a programming gig, it makes anyone outside red with envy, but I struggle to find something similar in Europe - especially in smaller countries.

What would your advice be for us who can't get a U.S. visa?

EDIT: I'm thinking mainly of Python/Django jobs and communities here.

<comment><USER46> The big advantage with the US in this case is that it is often cheap and easy to fire someone. This makes companies much more likely to take a chance on someone, since they know they can get quickly rid of them if it doesn't work out.

<comment><USER47> That's true but it's not the only reason. Note that there's still a social cost to firing people.

I believe another major reason is that software companies in the US are in average more profitable and more productive than in other countries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> In six months you did more than other hackers I know do in a year. In code, time is relative to effort/motivation. You have both, work will gravitate to you. Now, wait until you start contracting, and find your inbox full of work after posting a for hire ad in HN. Crazy.

To give you some perspective of the relativity of effort/motivation, I know people who have been "learning" for years who just don't sit down and push through. Sure, like others say, your code will have security holes the size of the titanic, but you are still learning. And learning is about finding out what doesnt work. Good luck, and keep hacking.

</comment><comment><USER49> Jeff, not to criticize but your site is near-unreadable to me (Windows 7, both in Chrome and Opera). Here is an image: <http://i.imgur.com/4wXrQ.png>

The text is too light at #666 on a white background, which is pretty light on windows (although chrome renders it a bit thicker, it's still pretty light). Also it would look much better if I didn't have Adobe Caslon Pro, as Cambria is pretty normal.

I loved the content.

</comment><comment><USER50> It's really too bad that there isn't more newbie-friendly friendly stuff going on in the SF ruby meet-ups. One of the first things I did upon moving here a few months ago was to join the group and look for anything aimed at learners. Unfortunately in 3 months and dozens of emails from the meetup group, I haven't seen a single event where men welcome (without a woman bringing them).

In this city, at least, it's probably a better idea to spend more time on your own learning. Some of the resources on the OP's list are great. Learn to Program was something I went through before moving out at it was a good intro. Also, Code School is good if you can spare the cash. Coursera has been fantastic-- it's completely free and has full videos, graded tests and forums.

Once you do have somewhat more of a foundation, then the normal meetups start getting more useful-- hack nights, pair programming nights, lightning talks, etc. One thing I have to say though, is that I met some _extremely_ friendly and welcoming people early on when I went to meetups and had no idea what the heck everyone else was talking about.

<comment><USER51> The SF Ruby list reaches several thousand people. I organize free weekly Ruby classes but don't blast SF Ruby for fear of being quickly overwhelmed. I emailed you with details.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Site (is/was) dead, google cache version: <http://tinyurl.com/cqojywn>

</comment><comment><USER53> This is great motivation. I've been doing much the same as you, just over a longer period of time, but I've been a little too intimidated to put myself out there so to speak. It is great to know others are getting results in return for their determination.

</comment><comment><USER54> Just a heads up, that fixed position element makes for a verrry annoying mobile experience, especially when someone taps to zoom in. This is probably the most common source of my frustration with the mobile web--those annoying social share sidebars that are position-fixed are the primary perpetrators.

I noticed you're using onswipe though which helps, but if someone is using some third party Hacker News reader, onswipe won't load.

Having derailed this thread enough, I love everything about this. Ill never get enough of hearing people's success stories.

</comment><comment><USER55> Nice read man. I just started learning programming as well in early January of this year.

6 months ago, I never thought I would see myself working in a top HCII program as a research programmer. I'm sometimes in total disbelief of where I'm working at and also of the fact that I'm actually helping my professor.

"When I started this search I thought I would be scrubbing toilets in exchange for nightly code reviews." That was definitely my train of thought on my value as well, but I guess I underestimated myself as well.

</comment><comment><USER56> Self-taught programmers get a bad rap because we've all seen the guy who didn't know about arrays and defined 300 variables (I'm not kidding by the way, and this was in perl. Full of wonderful names like $aa1, $aa2, etc.).

However you can get around this by having the OP's attitude about being a life-long learner. It's important to get a lot of exposure to different people and styles to offset some of the lack of background you will start out with.

<comment><USER28> Self-taught programmers get a bad rap for multiple reasons; because people with degrees want to protect their market value and ego, because programmers have a tendency to act very competitively and arrogantly toward other programmers, and because the industry's business culture is so absolutely intolerant of perceived weakness and negativity. There are hardly any companies which did not decide that they require 'A players' which means not having a single apparent dent or scratch anywhere in your record, regardless of what ability you have manifested.

Basically, this is a hostile industry and being self-taught is blood in the water, a lot like being female (this needn't be explicit sexism, just a prevailing macho culture where if you seem weak in any way you don't belong).

Nothing I have said affects the ability of a life-long learner to have fun and do good work in any way. Getting respect and getting paid are another issue.

<comment><USER57> I agree completely. But I think that both subsets, the degree laden and the "no degrees allowed" crowd both apply the same labeling towards one another. Get's to a point where no one who's hiring for a worthwhile company cares about computer science degrees and cares more about exposure, references, and past experience. I think the industry is becoming more hostile towards both, no degree and degree types all the same. It's hostile towards anyone that hasn't proven they're worth their weight in gold either because of their github account or their past work experience. And that my friend a good thing.

<comment><USER28> I hold that the hostility is not really contingent on how good you are, but rather on perceived weakness. Most programmers intentionally try to make others feel and look incompetent, while trying themselves to come off like badasses. Partly a matter of being socially inept, partly of a macho culture in the field. And it's only aggravated when you have those programmers interviewing candidates... This is independent of ability - there are plenty of morons calling themselves A-players. You have to play that game or you will be seen as weak and torn apart.

That is NOT a good thing. For example, it is actively driving women _who are interested in computers and good at programming_ away from the industry. Who wants to deal with the boys' club?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> And since my blog has never had more than 5 people on it at a time... it crashed.

<comment><USER58> Funny seeing Aubrey & Gavin mentioned on an HN post. Both are great guys and also attend the iOS meetups here in Tampa. You're welcome to join too. We're meeting Aug 30th next: <http://www.meetup.com/Suncoast-iOS/events/77862782/>

Gavin actually talked about you in one of the past meetups, saying how he knows one smart-cookie from his Ruby group who taught himself coding over a few months and got a job through sheer persistence. He mentioned being impressed by the progress in your code at day 1 vs day 30 vs day 90. Great to see you're sharing your lessons here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Really awesome to see a self-taught success story like this. Love the dedication Jeff!

A side point of advice for anyone wanting to learn programming and still in college: DEFINITELY take an introductory programming class. There's endless amounts you can learn online, but learning the fundamentals through languages like C and Scheme gives you great perspective when you do pick up web code.

</comment><comment><USER60> While I value a college education I have to say that a college degree is not a guarantee of performance at all. A programmer, in my opinion, must have some College exposure. The OP does, as he says he graduated with a business degree. Aside from that, programming is a multi-faceted and ever-evolving discipline. We are always learning new things. A proven ability to approach something new and learn it is at the top of my list. He certainly proved that part.

I come to this from the perspective that virtually nothing I do today existed when I was in college. This goes for programming languages and even hardware design areas such as FPGA's. I, as an engineer, have to learn constantly. That aspect of my profession never stopped and, in fact, intensified after leaving college as there's so much to learn.

How is a college grad going to react to a paradigm shift such as what happened as the internet started to take roots? It was the wild west for several years as new ideas popped-up and you had to either play or get off the train. I'll take someone really smart who has the tenacity, drive and interest to learn new things quickly over a degreed engineer who is slow to react.

I have known many engineers who have remained stagnant over the years because they simply didn't want to bother to learn new things or were far too comfortable doing what they were doing. Some of these guys are unemployed today. Their skill set simply doesn't match todays reality and a degree means exactly nothing.

Now, to be sure, the combination of good, solid schooling and drive, tenacity and a rabid interest to constantly learn can be a very powerful thing. In my experience that person is more the exception than the rule. A lot of college grads just want to find a train to ride as long as they can with the skill set they acquired. The self-driven individual who wants to own a topic today and then another topic tomorrow is very rare.

Oh, yes, and a lot of college grads write code that is as shitty as anyone else's. There is no monopoly on the ability to write horrible code due to the lack of experience.

</comment><comment><USER61> My first thought reading through was "heh, but now that I'm in NYC... I wonder what _my_ chances are..." and then bam... there ya go! I'm glad to see stuff like this, and totally agree with the points– especially the whole git-like-a- boss bit.

</comment><comment><USER62> Get hired sooner.

Audax Health is hiring in SF & DC.

Work in a fun and entrepreneurial environment where dress is casual and flip- flops are encouraged. We provide the best tools such as brand new Apple computers for every employee. Collaborate daily with top talent from companies like Zynga, WebMD, Microsoft, Bloomberg, Booz Allen Hamilton, and XM. Your contributions will directly impact the way millions of people interact with healthcare.

What makes our office fun:

• Our super swanky waterfront office space in Washington D.C. • Top of the line Apple products • Couches, ping pong, foosball, air hockey, arcade basketball shooter, Xbox and TVs • A kitchen filled with scrumptious food, snacks and beverages

Contact nayan.jain [at] audaxhealth.com

</comment><comment><USER63> I'm interested. My wife currently tries to do exactly this. The article might be encouraging.

But I cannot read it due to a big yellow square overlapping the content, so.. useless link for me.

</comment><comment><USER64> "I like to learn; I like to teach; I kill two birds."

I like this tagline on the blog. Congratulations Jeff. Yes there are naysayers and there is always an argument against something. But we applaud your efforts. For people who are criticizing this, just look at it this way. This guy pulled off something by working his ass of (in his own words). The creates hope and inspiration for others like him and I am sure there are plenty even among HN.

</comment><comment><USER65> One of the biggest problem in the industry is that there are to many bad programmers! The sad thing is that these kind of people spam all the employers, which make it a lot harder to filter out the good from the bad.

On the other hand their work tend to give all the rest of the us work when they just hit the wall with something hard.

</comment><comment><USER66> I was lucky enough to give a little talk at BarCampCharleston, in Charleston, SC, last year.

I spoke on the same topic, but from a less generic standpoint (focus was on Rails): <https://railsneedtoknow.heroku.com>

It's not perfect, but it helped a lot of people :)

</comment><comment><USER5> The post has moved, so if you are looking it is here:

[http://jeffreybaird.github.com/blog/2012/08/21/how-to- get-a-...](http://jeffreybaird.github.com/blog/2012/08/21/how-to-get-a-job-as- a-developer-in-less-than-six-months/)

</comment><comment><USER67> "Push code to github EVERYDAY"

Good advice; the title lends itself to initially annoy skeptics (including me), but it does look like you put a lot of effort into this. With that kind of sustained and public effort it's definitely doable.

</comment><comment><USER28> __If you are a new graduate.

If you are not a new graduate, and especially if you don't look so young, you are definitely not going to have such an easy time, without good connections.

Take internships while you are in college, if you can

</comment><comment><USER68> I applaud your ambition and intitiative. Many experienced programmers should take note of how you socialized with other human beings (multiple times!) to get the gig. Enthusiasm is underrated.

</comment><comment><USER69> tldr; there's no secret sauce; just work hard _.

_ Applies to other professions too.

edit: Congrats to the author, and refreshing to see someone document, the effort involved as opposed to some "clever hack" of the system.

</comment><comment><USER70> Mentally add: "...if you've never coded/been a developer/have no prior experience."

I came here wondering in what job market a developer has to wait six months to find a job. Oh, no experience. I see.

</comment><comment><USER71> This was an incredible read. The guy deserves it. Congrats Jeff!

</comment><comment><USER72> "Work hard, write a lot of code, be transparent and be enthusiastic."

Sums it up for many industries. Just replace code with something valuable in your profession.

</comment><comment><USER73> This was a great read first thing in the morning! Thanks Jeff for your enthusiasm!

</comment><comment><USER74> Awesome!!! Congratz and good luck!

</comment><comment><USER33> "In February 2012 I had never written a line of code. But, as of July 11, 2012 I am employed as a full-time Ruby Developer. You can do it too."

Best. Quote. Ever.

I am re-motivated to continue learning programming.

Nice work sir. Congrats.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome!!!

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> Thanks Jeff for such an inspirational article.

</comment><comment><USER76> Yay, that's exactly what our industry needs; more cargo cult programmers writing terrible software! Let's just be glad that this RoR guy isn't building anything safety critical.

<comment><USER77> How very positive and encouraging of you. Exactly what our industry needs, elitist developers who don't want to grow the industry. You know, there is a shortage of strong developers available and you were a beginner too at one point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Might help credibility if his site wasnt down... <http://imgur.com/fhK0M>

<comment><USER79> I'm guessing my blog couldn't handle front-page HN traffic either. Yeah, it's easy enough to fix and I can think of a dozen different ways to do it in under an hour, but as the OP said in another comment, the site gets so little traffic it was never a concern. Same with mine.

Ironic? Yes. Damages credibility? Nope.

<comment><USER78> i'm one to talk, mine probably couldn't handle it either...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> Wow.. so I really could have landed a programming job when I was 13? Damn. Maybe I should have just believed in myself more like this guy.

I shudder to think of the quality of his code and the projects he or people like him are let loose on.

Awesome that he's passionate and landed something, but underneath it just makes me cringe because I see the shithouse quality of work that comes out of people probably equally skilled, but not as passionate, everyday.

I should move to America..

<comment><USER81> "I see the shithouse quality of work that comes out of people probably equally skilled, but not as passionate, everyday"

Passion makes one want to learn more, and constantly improve. People who love what they do will listen to others advice and are able to be molded in to a great developer. Without that passion, you are just doing your job - and when it is "just" a job, then you aren't giving it your 100%.

Maybe blame the "shithouse" quality of work on the person, and not their background. Additionally - take the time to correct those people and guide them. If you are that experienced, become a mentor instead of a critic.

<comment><USER80> You're right, my response was probably a little angsty. There are some that are willing to expand and learn more and they usually turn out to be awesome developers with innovative ideas all the time. I was probably more referring to the "job" types, who don't care for what you might have to teach them and they just wind up getting in your way =\

Hopefully the future will hold more career type developers in my sector, but we'll have to wait and see =)</comment></comment></comment>


Cells Talk and Help One Another via Tiny Tube Networks - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/cells-talk-and-help-one-another-via-tiny-tube-networks-20180423/ <comment><USER3> > _With microscopy techniques, the group examined the structures further and > determined that they are open channels through which organelles and membrane > vesicles move from one cell to another. At that point it became clear that > the membrane tubes were "a completely new mechanism of cell-cell > communication," Rustom explained._

Vesicles are like a message in a bottle, thrown out into the "sea" of our atmosphere. Or an email, and viruses are spam. Here, it's like cells create point-to-point communication - like using lasers to send ship-to-ship communications in space science fiction - to upload their vesicle-wrapped RNA messages securely from client to server. Or server to client, as immune cells show:

> _How exactly did the engineered stem cells rescue the mouse? First, they > differentiated into immune cells called macrophages and traveled to the > injured kidney tissues. Once there, the macrophages formed TNTs with injured > cells and transferred lysosomes — tiny packages full of healthy enzymes — to > the diseased cells, Cherqui explained. The diseased cells also sent their > defective lysosomes back to the macrophages through the same channels._

This supports an economic cellular theory wherein not every cell in the body can create all of the molecular structures and components it needs to survive - but each cell can create some components in excess, so cells trade RNA and proteins as they need.

Previously on HN:

Cells Talk in a Language That Looks Like Viruses. [0]

800 million viruses fall onto every square meter of Earth every day. They kill 20% of bacterial life every day. [1]

Video simulation of HIV infecting a cell and reproducing. [2]

      [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17005810
      [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16839636
      [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16982396

</comment><comment><USER4> For the sake of curiosity, can anyone guess what the results would be of temporarily stopping the cellular bridging action (lacking a better term) in an organisim?

</comment><comment><USER5> This reminds me of pili, use by bacteria in conjugation. I wonder if eukaryotes have versions of tra and trb.

</comment><comment><USER6> Seriously cancer is absurdly sophisticated.

<comment><USER7> Biology is absurdly sophisticated. Cancer just seems to reveal more edge cases that are 'supported' by the system but not typically expressed. I just learned about exosomes not too long ago. This seems to be an even more advanced intercellular messaging system.

It's also another example of why I'm in the panspermia camp. I don't think all this crazy shit could evolve in the amount of time that Earth has been hospitable to life. It just feels too complex.

<comment><USER8> The alternative is to think of each cell as an individual conscious intelligent being which knows what it is doing. It knows how to modify its own DNA, and does it creatively, similar to a programmer, just a very smart one. Our sense of "I" that encompasses all cells in the body is an illusion - <USER2> "I" is really the consciousness of a single specialized (and appropriately zombified) cell. Every organism is a symbiosis of conscious beings.

This doesn't explain where the "very first cell" comes from, but I find the theory fascinating anyway. Unfortunately those who share this view are not very vocal about it (who wants to be called a crackpot? :)

<comment><USER7> Yeah that's not far from the other idea I'm entertaining, lol. Not necessarily that each cell is conscious or intelligent, but that there are creative mechanisms at play that we don't perceive. Ones that guide or 'program' evolution of DNA constructively rather than randomly.

To your point, the idea of a monolithic 'I' that represents the ~50 trillion cells in my body is kind of ridiculous, particularly when roughly half of them don't even share my DNA. In that same vein, it has always weirded me out that we don't intuitively know how our bodies work...to the point that I even began thinking of the human consciousness as kind of virus that infected the germ line of primates with this extra meat in the noggin that intercepts the senses and controls the body.

Anyway I just need to learn more about all of this stuff before I put any real stock into my harebrained ideas.

<comment><USER8> I think every cell (and every bacteria) has this capacity, but higher intelligence can be disabled by some molecular switch (other senses cannot be disabled, they are the property of life) . The one that carries the illusion of human "I" is not particularly "advanced", but again, it's just a matter of some extra axon or something :). I'm pretty sure humans were designed by bacteria (or their descendants), but our species plays very modest role in the overall scheme of things. We are certainly not the ones calling the shots :) You can start here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBGt5OeAQFk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBGt5OeAQFk)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Launching iNeedy.co – Business Showcase Directory - <AUTHOR> https://ineedy.co/ <comment><AUTHOR> Launching iNeedy.co to fill the gap between your great idea and beyond. It can often take months to launch your ideal website and in that time you could be showcasing your products and services to the World. You could also be collecting vital leads for your business. The leads come directly to you and we take no commission.</comment>


To The Lone Entrepreneur: Make Your Failure Public - <AUTHOR> http://www.cozysystems.com/blog/?p=74

<comment><USER2> I think the title is a needlessly negative frame wrapped around a very good idea: let people know what you're working on. It helps promote a sense of responsibility about the work before you have, e.g., a finished product or customers. (After you have a couple dozen people who paid you money and would be left in the lurch if you quit, that tends to be all the motivation to keep going you need. Well, for me anyhow.)

If you've told your friends and family what you're working on, if your project should die you will have people asking you "Hey, whatever happened to...", which will motivate you to not die. For similar reasons, I recommend having a blog, as if you didn't have enough reasons to have a business blog already.

You don't even have to do a launch party -- I just told my dad. He told me my idea was, ahem, crazy and that I should go get a job at Google. (Best bad advice _ever_ in terms of motivating me.)

<comment><USER3> _I just told my dad. He told me my idea was, ahem, crazy and that I should go get a job at Google._

My step-dad is 90 and has done a lot of cool stuff. I admire the heck out of him. He's still sharp and has great advice about everything else.

But I've found with startups and technology consulting? I'm better off doing the exact opposite of whatever he says. It's like the world he grew up in had exactly the opposite paradigms from the world he is in now.

So with friendships and sharing comes a lot of unspoken assumptions. Be sure the people you share with or have the party with have some idea of how technology businesses work (or are willing to listen to you). Otherwise you could either get bad "quit now and do something productive" advice , or worse yet, blanket acceptance without an honest critique. After all, partners are also there to tell you that you're going off the rails.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I didn't throw a launch party, but I have been incrementally building my latest project (<http://votereports.org/>) completely in the open, starting from the first weekend it was started and launched (which happened to be a Startup Weekend event).

I'm about 2 months in now, and while I'll need another 2 or 3 before I'm ready to promote it, just having it out there has been an excellent motivator, for one simple reason:

When I talk about the site to someone new, rather than just explain the idea of the thing I'm working on I have to also tell them that it's up on the web. And when I do that, given its current state I have to follow with a whole litany of cautionary notes to the effect of: it's not done yet.

So instead of basking in the glow of the nobility of my not-yet-public project, for now and until it's ready to go, I'm be making well-justified apologies every time it comes up.

I'm looking forward to not needing to make those apologies, and working in part to see that happen. These uncomfortable moments complement my longer-term vision for the project, as the immediate, recurring motivation I need to complement the that farther-out achievement of completion.

So I agree, as the submitter says: Make your "Failure" Public.

 _edit_ : And in the spirit of what's above, you should know that the site's visual design has been the same since the first weekend, and will be totally revamped sometime in the near future.

</comment><comment><USER5> As a lone entrepreneur in a city that is very un-entrepreneurial (even anti- entrepreneurial in some ways), I think this is a good idea assuming you invite the right people to the launch party. You need people who will celebrate your risk-taking adventure with you as well as be there in a positive way when things get very hard or if it ultimately fails.

Although I know the title is denigrating, it actually is good advice. My first effort failed miserably, causing me to slink back to a nine-to-fiver I hate. Once I came to terms with why I had failed the first time and shared those deeply personal things with others, I find my second time around is much clearer and focused. And those who are informed and care help to remind me of what not to do as much as what to do. In some ways, they are like silent co- founders.

</comment><comment><USER6> Sharing my startup with my friends and family somehow inspired a sense of legitimacy in me. They wished me luck and it resulted in some unexpected networking.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm in the exact same boat, sans the party. Lone entrepreneur building a few projects, with a few live and the big one not quite ready for people to start using it yet. I have told people about my projects but so far I haven't really thrown myself out there. I like your title because it encourages us to take a risk, and to not fear failure, but to face it head on, and hopefully avoid it in the end.

</comment><comment><USER8> That is a very simple, yet great, idea. I'm definitely doing this, something to look forward to.

</comment><comment><USER9> I always _celebrated_ my failures.</comment>


Ask HN: How Do You Use Twitter? - <AUTHOR>

Do you use the generic UI at http://www.twitter.com? Do you use http://search.twitter.com? Or do you surf it some other way? I am seriously not getting twitter. What am I doing wrong? <comment><USER2> For Search: It depends on what you want. If you want a "human powered" real time search, use Twitter. e.g finding out if where a live stream of an event is showing. Or Facebook ad coupon. Something that would more likely be put out there by a human.

For Tweeting, I use it more like a public chat system</comment>


Ask HN: Are you more likely to apply for a job that discloses salary upfront? - <AUTHOR> I started to work on a job board to improve my Node.js / MongoDB skills and I'm thinking of actually launching it. But how do I make my board different from all others? I'm thinking of having a mandatory salary field so that each job would contain a salary range.<p>Stack Overflow data shows that job ads with salary receive 75% more clicks. https://stackoverflow.blog/2016/07/salary-transparency/#75. Other job sites are reporting 20% - 30% increase in job applications for ads with salaries. <comment><USER2> Certainly.

Especially right now, you need to attract candidates who are "passively looking": people who have a job, but would move given a good offer. I do freelance development and consulting, and I'm basically happy with that. I wouldn't turn down a great opportunity, but I'm not going to start the application process unless I know you can beat what I'm already earning.

<comment><USER3> Almost every single time I've decided to move to a new job I was passively looking at best. Every person I know, even the ones who are happy at their jobs, would be willing to move if an opportunity cropped up that interested them more than their current gig (money is important too, of course, but not 100% of the equation).

I'm only speaking from anecdotes but I feel like finding a way to cater to the passively looking engineering job area could be HUGE if done well. Trouble is I don't entirely know how to do it well and not come off as spammy.

<comment><USER2> I agree about it being huge. But from an employer perspective, even if it's not huge, what counts is the margin, and if it gives you a few more good candidates than everyone else trying to hire, that is a big advantage. All the things Joel Spolsky wrote about the developer hiring market change, if you are reaching these passively looking people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I doubt you'll get anyone who says that salary range disclosed in a job advertisement is not a good thing, from the perspective of the job seeker.

The question you may want to ask instead is: "Does the benefit to the job seeker of having a salary range specified outweigh the loss of potential advertisers who do not want to disclose a salary range?"

If you're just doing this as a side project, with no expectation of making a business out of it, then you may want to lean more toward what benefits the user.

If you're trying to run a business and pay the bills, you might need to think more about how it decreases your potential revenue, assuming the job advertisers are the ones who are paying for your service.

One other thing: Salary range is inherently a fuzzy concept. It's possible to set limits (e.g. the range must not span more than $20K, or the range must not constitute more than 20% of the lower-end number) but then you have to take into account that an advertised salary range is not necessarily the same as what they're ultimately willing to offer you. And then you have to factor in benefits, etc., which can make salary ranges misleading.

Edit: One possible way to make salary range disclosures more palatable to advertisers is to borrow a strategy from matchmaking systems: The advertiser discloses a salary range, and the job seeker discloses a minimum required salary, to the website, which does not make any of that information public. When the job seeker submits an application for a job, they receive a notice if the advertiser's specified salary range does not meet their minimum requirements. This keeps the actual salary range out of public view and at least slightly difficult to estimate, but it prevents the job applicant from wasting their time.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm thinking that launching just another job board won't get me anywhere. I'll have to either a) spend heavily on advertising (which I can't afford) or b) differentiate myself from all other job boards out there.

I live in Finland (5 million habitants) and based on my research only about 5% of job ads include salary. It's not part of the culture to discuss salaries publicly so it's very well possible that companies won't be willing to go public.

On the other hand, I think it's quite promising that there are even a few companies that are already publishing their salary offers, despite most of the competition not doing it.

I see it as my job to convince them it's good for their business and start a little revolution. Maybe others will join the bandwagon?

<comment><USER5> I feel like the job board (yours, Monster, Dice, whoever) is in a unique position to solve this problem. You can ask each side for their salary range but then don't disclose it to the opposite side. You can then match candidates to compatible jobs and everyone knows up front that the desired ranges overlap.

<comment><USER6> This is a really interesting idea. I would expand it further... OkCupid for employment. Outsource algorithmic and language knowledge measurement to something like TopCoder and add that as a potential dimension on which to match. Education, clearances, experience: these could all be match dimensions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A range helps to know if it's even worth applying. If I see a range, from X to Y, and my prefered salary is Y + 20k, It's probably worth talking to you because there's a chance I can make the needle move.

If I'd have to make the needle move by 100k, then I'm not going to bother.

If the range is not shown at all, I'll still apply, but I'll usually start with "While I negotiate salaries later in the process, my range is usually around X-Y, depending on the role".

Too many times I went through a phone screen, and when talk of salaries came up, it was just way off. And sure, phone screens are quick, but at that point I already had to deal with the silly pointless puzzles for 30-60+ minutes.

<comment><USER8> I've been through entire interview processes (multiple hour long interviews over days) to get to this point, so a phone screen doesn't seem so bad. Anyone have hints on how to gracefully breach the salary topic? I've also had technical interviews where the interviewers are attempting to gauge my "seniorness" because apparently resume and work experience isn't enough to determine this. It's possible that many companies want to adjust salary based on perceived interview performance.

<comment><USER9> One time an hr person called me to schedule an interview (after I'd submitted my resume thru stackoverflow iirc) and I just asked her; can you offer at least X? She put me on hold, talked to the hiring manager and said no. I replied thanks, not interested. Ymmv

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Lacking a salary range in a job posting tells me that "competitive salary" really means "below market rate" in most cases.

I've found the best postings list their minimum ($70k+ or whatever). Maximum is irrelevant, as you can assume it's around 20% of that minimum. It shows what salaries and skill expertise they're after.

<comment><USER11> I've seen ads that list a salary range of "$100-200K." Not sure what skill level they're aiming for there.

<comment><USER12> We do this when the candidate pool is very small. If we get someone fresh out of university with very little experience they'll earn the bottom of the range. If we get someone more senior with relevant experience they might be worth a lot more.

<comment><USER13> Not sure I'd want to work for a company with such... broadly defined roles...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Too many employers think on one hand that they need hours of interviews to verify that I'm a top candidate, and on the other think that 70k is a competitive offer for me to waste my time applying to jobs without salaries.

<comment><USER15> If you want to quickly verify that a potential employer is willing to pay a 'competitive' salary, why don't you take the initiative and tell them not to consider you if the position pays less than $x?

<comment><USER16> Because that usually turns into you getting an offer of $x when in reality, they may have been willing to pay much higher.

<comment><USER14> I think this risk is a lot more prevalent early in your career or in the bay area.

I can't imagine this happening in the Houston market to someone with 6-7 year of experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As a current job seeker, its certainly helpful to see the range I can expect when the process gets that far. I might suggest that you offer two modes for input: exact and range. In the case of range, maybe, warn them if their range is crazy big. I've seen jobs recently in the market I'm searching in on StackOverflow advertising a range with the low end being 50% of the high end. That doesn't actually help me when deciding on whether to contact.

If you really wanted to go crazy, make a publicly advertised email field mandatory, also. If I find a job posting and can't send an email to apply for it. I, most of the time, skip applying for that job. I might fill out a form that asks for just, like, my name, email and has a file field for my resume, but, it still rubs me the wrong way to fill that out. Give me an email address and let me write a small personalized note with a link to my resume. When you present me with a form to apply it makes me feel like I'm just a new datapoint in your recruitment database rather than, like, a human being just trying to start a conversation about how we can help each other.

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely! Public company email is mandatory, I didn't even consider having a job ad without it. Good point about the application form, it sure makes the applicant feel like just another record in a database.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> More than once I've gotten to the negotiation phase of the job offer only to find the employer won't meet my salary requirement. It's very frustrating and a huge waste of time for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER18> There's a big problem with salary ranges:

Everyone wants the highest number listed. This prevents employers from being honest, because that max range should be the MOST They want to spend, but to the applicant, it's the least they think they should accept.

It's frustrating as an applicant, and having been on both sides of this fence, I've stopped listing it because it's a very easy question to ask on a first contact: "Just so we're in the same ballpark, what kind of salary range are you looking for? I'm not going to hold you to whatever number you throw out because we've still got a lot to learn about each other, but I don't want to waste anyone's time"

<comment><USER19> That also a dangerous question to answer on first contact. If I was applying I would not believe you and just avoid answering anyway. Time will still be wasted and this whole process will continue to be non-ideal.

<comment><USER18> Why would you not believe me? It's not like I can force you to take a job either way.

I expect people to want to either make more money than they are now (I never ask that question, btw.. I think that's offensive IMO) or have a better experience in coming to work at a new job, and any manager worth working for should too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Absolutely. Job hunting is an intensive task. Knowing the salary range before you apply for a job, is extremely important . Cutting out jobs that aren't applicable from the salary perspective saves you time and effort.

</comment><comment><USER21> Having a clear salary expectation up front just saves both parties time and effort. One of the big reasons salary ranges aren't always public, is because it benefits the company, by maintaining information asymmetry. By but doing that, you're at least in a small way, telling me that you don't want to play that game and are more likely to be transparent with me about other parts of the process.

</comment><comment><USER22> Absolutely. If I currently have a job (probably the people you want), the most companies I actively interview for at any given time is ~4, give or take. Any more takes way too much time and is difficult to prep for. I simply can't waste my time with companies that may take a significant chunk of my time and end up not being able to offer an acceptable salary. There's a big enough pool of jobs I know for a fact are within my salary requirements, so I don't need to have doubt. Some of these usually come from job postings including salaries, and some of them come from a recruiter (a good recruiter is a valuable asset for me) who know my requirements.

</comment><comment><USER23> Of course, one of my terrible experiences was interviewing after a company pinged and showed strong interest. Only to be offered half of what I was making and been begged to take it because they are about to go big and shares.

I wish to know the salary upfront. I'll never take another interview without discussing the salary range beforehand.

</comment><comment><USER24> For the most part, yes.

Given that job titles aren't able to help me discover whether an opportunity is right for my next career move, salary ranges help me to gauge whether I'd be moving up a ladder and save me time from having to schedule something only to find out that they were really looking for juniors.

</comment><comment><USER25> Yes.

It's a colossal waste of half a day or so plus all the conversations.

No salary range usually implies generic ad from some half assed agency trying to get people on their books

</comment><comment><USER26> Total compensation is the first and only thing that I ask before even learning about an opportunity.

I make $240k / year. And, that's a jaw-dropping figure for companies that only seek warm bodies to fill seats. It's better to get that out of the way immediately.

<comment><USER27> Awesome! Where / what do you work on?

<comment><USER26> "Big data analytics" (lol). Hey, in this business it pays to ride the hype curve for as long as you can...

But, basically, I just crunch PiBs of data, build platforms that inexpensively scale to 100s of billions of writes a day, and generate astrological reports that get sold for much, much more than I make.

My first mentor once told me two lasting pieces of advice to making money:

1) Do not try to know everything. Instead aim to know 5-10% more than everyone else in the room.

2) Learn to negotiate. Essentially, understand what the other party needs and how much they need it. Then, ask for the maximum that they're willing to pay plus the amount that it would cost to replace you.

That advice has been on target for over 15 years. Believe me - are _way more_ rooms out there than you'd think.

<comment><USER26> His 3rd piece of advice (somewhat unrelated): Find a boss that you love to work for and make them successful. And, if you don't like your boss, run from them as politely but as fast as you can.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I see the issue as information symmetry, the more the employer asks, the more he should quote the salary and detail other "advantages" (if any).

To add some humour, from:

[https://tudorbarbu.ninja/message-to- recruiters/](https://tudorbarbu.ninja/message-to-recruiters/)

"This is how most job ads sound nowadays:

We're looking for a person with more than 100 years of experience in software development, coding everything from BIOSes to cloud applications, knowledge of all past, present and future operating systems and setting up secure networks. The applicant must also be able to juggle up to twenty balls and read hieroglyphs, be fluent in Swahili and dance like Michael Jackson (especially moonwalking – nice to have at corporate Christmas parties)."

So, this is what is expected from you, it is only polite to list (including fringe benefits, in detail) what you can expect from the employer.

<comment><USER29> The gitlab confidence gap disclaimer is a refreshing break from this trend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Absolutely.

There's no point in wasting either side's time applying to a company that can't afford me.

On the flip side, if they're got very nitpicky requirements and are offering a huge salary, that's a good signal that they really are requirements and not just a description of the pie-in-the-sky ideal candidate.

</comment><comment><USER31> Here's the problem though -- often times, someone may have an open position or two, for a range of skill levels. So they interview, and determine what skill bucket the candidate falls into, and makes an offer based on that.

So the only way to solve that in a job listing, is to either give a wide salary range (50k - 150k, for example), which then becomes useless. Or to have one posting that lists a number of positions (systems admin level 1, programmer/analyst level 3, etc) with a set of skills required for each bucket.

<comment><USER11> If that's the case, then they're simply cheaping out on paying for separate ads. Which is a red flag to me.

<comment><USER31> Except they may not have 3 positions open -- just one position, but they may be willing to hire a more junior person with the hopes of training them and given them an upward career path. (Unfortunately for the employee, the pay doesn't typically increase as their skill increases).

<comment><USER32> It really is 3 positions though, it's just that they can only fill one.

Putting an ad out for all three, means better tuned applicants, and leaves the company the ability to make an offer of a different position. From the company's position, that's 1.5-3x the number of applicants, for the price of 2 additional ads.

When our company is looking for mixed positions (either a mid-level position where we'll also accept a junior position, or a mixed role such as dba/sysadmin), we'll put out two ads for the position that focus one aspect, then mention the other as a nice-to-have. Then we get candidates who are strong in one area, and average in another, or sometimes (when we're lucky), someone who is strong in both. But either way, we get to choose the best candidate, rather than having good candidates self-select out due to "you must have everything" or super-vague posts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Having enough salary is important, but it shouldn't drive your decision (as the employee). Not having enough money definitely matters, but at some point there are diminishing returns on how important salary is to your motivation, and future success in a role.

You know what I wish I had in a job search? Let me post a profile, not a resume, but give me a survey. Let employers search for me based on what I'm good at... where my strengths are. Focus the hunt not on "who has the best skills" but rather "who's going to round out my team". The idea that specific technical skills can be acquired easier than personality traits.

So here's the traits I'd look for. Every engineer has a mix of motivations, some care more about tech problems, others care more about business problems. Then honestly some are just more concerned about growing their career. All 3 personalities have equally important traits that are essential to a team. A good team should have a tech guy to make sure what it builds is maintainable, it should also have a guy who is always making sure what the team is building is valuable, and then frankly if you have both of these guys they're going to constantly disagree with each other... so you need another guy who will take both viewpoints into account and determine what's better for the company.

<comment><USER34> While the salary thing isn't everything, it still is a very important thing. And unless there's significant upside, most people I know aren't going to be interested in a job where they have to take a 30% cut. Especially if they already have a family.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'm a tech recruiter and job boards are one of the worst sources of candidates both for agency recruiters and companies. The best candidates aren't looking for jobs and hence will rarely visit job boards.

Companies like Hired & AngelCo are taking a marketplace approach to the hiring process. Arguably, the biggest issues with these processes is that you can't attract passive candidates.

If you can figure out a process that attracts passive candidates, you will win the recruiting industry. I think companies like HackerRank are in the right direction by being a platform for recruiting, but not in an overt way.

A lot of developers use HackerNews, but not for the recruitment aspect, but YC companies have an advantage because they can post to the job board.

As a developer, why would your job board be a massive difference to recruiters/companies? Chicken and Egg problem, but with subtle differences.

</comment><comment><USER36> I think it may depend a lot upon the candidate. I personally feel like I make a pretty good salary, and with many jobs I would otherwise consider applying to, I don't feel like it's worth the time to go through the interview process just to find out their max salary they can offer is a pay cut for me. Similarly if there is a job that looks interesting to me, but advertises it's range and it's in the ballpark of what I want, I would be MUCH more likely to apply.

It also provides a lot of information about what the job will be expected to do. With what I do, people are not going to be willing to give me the salary I want, while also wasting my time on remedial work when they could get someone much cheaper that could do those tasks. So by keeping my interest in higher salary jobs, I can try to limit it to jobs which hold more interest for me personally.

</comment><comment><USER37> I tend not to consider roles with no pay / range disclosed. Applying to roles is time consuming and why waste time on it to be told the salary is far lower than expected.

</comment><comment><USER38> Absolutely, even if the salary doesn't imply any commitment from the employer, and that it's not one salary, but an interval (like, $150k-170k). When I was looking for a job recently, I exclusively focused on Hired.com and AngelList, exactly because their postings have salaries.

Why does it matter? To me, it's actually not about the money, but about ensuring that what I understand of the job title is what the employer understands of the job title too. Job titles are currently very loose in the industry, and if I see a posting for a "Lead Full-Stack Software Engineer" for $80k, I will immediately understand that this title does not mean to me what it means to the employer, and will save everyone a lot of time.

</comment><comment><USER39> Even though the wording of the question is great, I think most people will take it as "Do you think disclosing a salary is a good thing?" Everyone would definitely be more likely to apply if the salary is good, but less likely if it's bad. The answer depends on the amount disclosed, not on the fact it's disclosed. It automatically makes you imagine the "happy case" and say that YES, it's awesome if I see a big salary and I would definitely apply more. But reality is different.

I think it's an interesting point, but any results or replies are destined to lead to wrong conclusions. It's like doing UX research by asking people what they want instead of observing their behavior (i.e. prone to bias). So I wouldn't take any of the answers here as relevant.

</comment><comment><USER40> Absolutely. I am sick of having my time wasted by companies that pretend to want above-median employees, but whose pay scales max out at below-median dollar amounts.

When I say I want $120k to move to your city, because you asked me to give you a number, and you say "Uhhhhh... we can't even negotiate from that as a starting point," you had better start putting your maximum number on your call for applicants. Because I just found out you were _lying_ when you said you pay competitive market salary for the job requirements you chose to publish.

I am also very unlikely to budge for less than the annual salary than I earn now times the change-in-cost-of-living multiplier for the best school district in your metro area.

It saves time on both sides for the employer to disclose up front.

</comment><comment><USER41> All things being equal, if I had to choose between applying to two jobs, and one of them explicitly offered the salary that I believe I'm worth, then yeah, I would apply to that one.

On another note, one thing I've been thinking of doing, (and I'd be delighted if you did it!) is a job board that only shows positions with take home interviews instead of in-person coding exercises. I think this is a growing trend as people realize that they're missing out on good developers who suck at coding under pressure with someone looking over their shoulder. I've come across several threads on HN with people saying the same thing.

<comment><USER42> The take-home system is great if you actually use it. I won a prize in a programming comp from a well known hedge fund - lots of interesting (and frankly hard) problems and I learned a lot. The competition was essentially take home and submit a bunch of numerical answers. Several questions were pinched from Project Euler, but I won't hold that against them... Small cash prize and offer of an interview for an internship. I assumed that they would take into consideration the submitted code, perhaps discuss some of the solutions.

So what do they ask in the phone interview? "How would you reverse a linked list?". Yeah, no. They didn't even bother to call back after I'd bombed it. It struck me as a bit weird that they went to the effort of coming up with a competition and then chucked the winners through the usual loop.

<comment><USER43> Genuine question, but what is so difficult about reversing a linked list? I don't have the algorithm memorized, but i can deduce in 10 minutes at most.

<comment><USER42> It's not, at all, but it took me by surprise and I made a mess of it. In hindsight the answer was less than 10 lines of python. The next time I went round an interview loop I rote learned all the CS101 stuff, because that's what you have to do (I'm not a computer scientist).

The issue was that the comp contained a lot of stuff that you couldn't deduce in 10 minutes. For example, all-shortest-paths graph search, performing huge calculations (e.g. stuff that blows up extremely fast), monte carlo simulations and other bits and pieces. It would have made for a much more interesting interview.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Unequivocally yes.

I need to know that I'm not wasting my time pursuing what may become a low- ball offer, and I'm wholly unwilling to take a pay-cut, regardless of promises from the prospective employer.

Once bitten, twice shy, as they say.

</comment><comment><USER45> Hired.com does a good job of this, you look at candidates on the board (as a potential employer) and you put in what you think you would pay that candidate. They can decide if they want to interview for the job or not. As an employer nice bit is that you already know that they would already consider working for you at that salary. For the candidate they can see multiple 'bids' from different companies and get a sense of the market and also see if their own expectations are under valued or over valued.

</comment><comment><USER46> Knowing the range is definite incentive to apply for a job or submit an application. Too many times a company will not list it and then the range is well below what I would be looking for. I will say glassdoor has helped a bit, because usually that is my first stop when an interesting company has an opening, that gives me at least some degree of what to expect.

I'm not looking for 200k but if you're budget is about 70k then I don't want to waste their engineers, managers, whoever or my own time.

</comment><comment><USER47> I definitely prefer knowing up front what the salary for a role would be. I go to work to get paid, so it's pretty a significant factor that should be communicated early on.

</comment><comment><USER48> Not just more likely, I flat out won't cold apply anywhere that doesn't have a range listed. I consider any company that isn't upfront about compensation as having something to hide.

Note: if you do this, mandatory salary field should be only numbers and dashes, because everyone will just do what craigslist does: "DOE", "Competitive" etc. See angellist for a good example of how to do this right.

</comment><comment><USER49> Add EXACT salary for the job - very often final salary is equal to min. wage mentioned in range.

Also, used technologies at company - because another job offer for front-end developer that uses Angular1, Angular2, React, Redux, Preact, Ember, Backbone, Node.js, MongoDB, Photoshop, Gimp and has 10+ years of experience is just dumb. Let the companies write about their flow, exact tech stacks etc.

</comment><comment><USER50> I think addressing the salary too directly e.g this is how much money give or take $5k makes the hunt overly focused on financial benefits, which as has been commented has substantial downsides.

I think that a standardized band should be selected. Substantial sized bands, to dissuade purely financially driven people. You want them, but also as has been pointed out you don't only want them. You need a range. Bands give security that we are having the same conversation. I have also been interviewed for roles where the salary being offered is substantially below market value. What a waste of time tbh.

Also some way of getting at the intangibles would be great. For employees knowing whether this manager fires regularly, his feedback in the industry, etc would be helpful when selecting a role.

Cultural questions with answers are also good.

There is a great deal not be done to help the two seekers find the right connection and it's quite shocking really how prosaic the tools are for recruiting when you consider the money involved.

<comment><USER51> > to dissuade purely financially driven people.

Is there any other kind of job hunter?

<comment><USER52> Yes, we're all supposed to be _passionate_ and _love what we do_. Working for money is gauche! Why, the very suggestion sent my monocle flying across the room!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> It depends -- if the salary is less than my minimum then it reduces the chances. If it is far more than what I expect, that also reduces the chance. The ideal range covers 10-20% more than I'm currently making -- that will increase my likelihood of applying.

The good thing about disclosing upfront is that it will save both me and the employer time down the road.

</comment><comment><USER54> Absolutely yes. Interestingly, just today I contacted a possible employee through StackOverflow who _didn 't_ provide salary upfront specifically asking them to give some indication of their budget.

My reasoning (which got me their expected salary range) was that without this, it could well be a pointless exercise for all parties involved

</comment><comment><USER55> I don't consider most jobs and companies because I don't think they can pay the same or more than I already make. A good problem to have.

That said I think most companies are genuinely looking for more inexpensive candidates. Or maybe not? I don't know. I can never really tell what people are willing to pay.

</comment><comment><USER56> Yes, but only if the salary is in my range.

I get so many recruiter spams, LinkedIn junk mail, contacts from former associates, etc. - most of which have absolutely no salary range - those that do and are high enough tend to stand-out in my mind, while a lot of the other ones are simply mass deleted every few days.

<comment><USER51> I even if the ranges are listed I still think brain dead recruiters are going to send you an entry level help desk position even though you have 10 years of dev experience. I'm not sure how you solve the spray and pray nature of some recruiters. Especially the ones who tell me "i'd like to submit you for this req" after I've just told them I'm not interested.

<comment><USER35> I typically only send personalized emails to developers. Do you only respond to emails if salary range is listed?

<comment><USER51> I try to use my judgement on the skill set to see if it's where I am in my career. If it's actually personalized then I will probably respond either. A range just gives both of an easy yes or no and saves time. Maybe I'm different but I cannot imaging taking a pay cut to go anywhere in this market. If it's even in my ballpark for skills you will be the top 5% of recruiters.

I'll get things like contracting gigs. I'll take one for a significant increase to offset stability. Recruiters offer my current rate +$5 and expect me to travel weekly and cover that cost... We're not even talking at that point.

On job searches I generally ignore any position with no range or "excellent compensation". I just feel like it's too low to list.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> A range is helpful but if the company is unwilling to put their actual max dollar value up for highly qualified candidates (read: the range is not the real range) it might result in fewer high quality applications.

If a range is not listed but the job is something of interest to me, I would not hesitate to apply and then ask the recruiter / HR contact about the range and whether expectations line up. It's one call and might help make a connection or refer you to a different gig.

As an aside, anything that indicates "we're an awesome bunch of rock star ninja people with competitive pay and benefits packages" typically results in a tab close.

</comment><comment><USER58> Most of the times, yes.

Sometimes good benefits (NOT equity and soda, but 401k, healthcare, etc.) are so much better than the norm that I may overlook the salary being omitted and treat the interview as a discovery process.

</comment><comment><USER59> If the company's Target is noticeably low, then I really want them to put up the salary. I do however want them to be very honest about there range. This allows for me to be much more particular about what my other needs are from the company.

If they are paying market rates for their employees, then I don't particularly care. I'm comfortable with negotiating at the higher levels.

It looks like a company's range is dishonest, then I'm comfortable with having wasted their time when I am searching for work.

</comment><comment><USER60> Indeed, otherwise there is a cost time and sometimes money based on that time to the job seeker to find out what the salary is.

For the employer this may suck because existing employees will see rates/market and if they don't have an open salary policy it could cause issues.

For the job seeker, you might also want higher and not go to a place that may decide to pay you higher based on experience and skills.

A range is probably the best but a number puts job seeker and employer closer to the deal just by seeing the numbers.

</comment><comment><USER61> If I see a job that I like with a salary that I like, I could apply.

If I like the job and don't see a salary, I could apply only if the job description hints to a salary that I like.

In other cases, I don't.

That means that if the salary is hidden and there is a mismatch between my expectation and the salary, I'll apply and everybody will waste time.

If there are many people like me the number of applicants could be higher but the effectiveness of the hiring process will be lower. I support the mandatory salary field.

</comment><comment><USER62> I would only apply for a job that doesn't have salary information if it was a large established company, where I could feel reasonably comfortable that they have a clue about what salaries should be, and a budget to actually pay it.

If it was a small business, especially if the position is the only one of its type at that company I would not bother making any contact at all without salary info - it's a total waste of time.

</comment><comment><USER63> Nope. I'd most likely apply for something I believe will be enjoyable 8-10 hours a day, Monday to Friday from January to December. It's called employee retention and you should evaluate that metric yourself. If you let your employer handle that part it'll be about knowing how much will be your next salary increase. Which falls back to your question. Short term versus long term.

</comment><comment><USER64> No, because I've literally never seen a posted range that is at or above what I expect to be paid, and what I've been making for 5+ years.

</comment><comment><USER65> I have to feel super passionate about applying for a job opening that doesn't list a salary range.

And maybe that's a good thing for both sides.

</comment><comment><USER31> This is the one nice thing about going through a recruiter (that you trust). You can give them the range that you are looking for (a lower number plus other benefits, or a higher number if it is a higher stress place), and they can filter the positions ahead of time.

</comment><comment><USER66> No ... but I would only apply to a job that didn't list salary if I had a ballpark range in mind for what it would pay.

I'm MUCH more likely to spend time browsing job postings (and hence applying) that give a salary range though.

</comment><comment><USER67> When I was younger I'd apply regardless. Now, I won't even bother without a minimum being listed.

I'm far enough in my career that I won't allow my time to be wasted. And if you're hiding your pay scale, you're wasting my time.

</comment><comment><USER68> Why on earth would someone apply for a job if they don't know the salary up front? When I recruit people I always disclose the salary, it signals the level of applicant I expect for the job and saves wasting anyone's time.

</comment><comment><USER69> AngelList shows salary (and equity) ranges. They are pretty wide but still preferable.

</comment><comment><USER70> I often don't even bother to click through if there isn't at least an idea of salary. (Using words like 'competitive', or 'DOE' don't count, and earn the posting minus points)

</comment><comment><USER71> The problem is everyone always throws up like "30-180k depending on experience". Standardize that by making like 3 "sample" levels and nake them say what they would give for each.

<comment><USER72> With such a wide range I wouldn't apply. And when a headhunter comes to me and just says "are you interested in a job?", without giving me any details. I don't even bother to ask what it is about.

If you want to be interesting make an detailed offer with detailed informations. And when it fits the person reading it, he eventually will respond.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Location matters. Jobs being offered on the west coast almost always beat my salary here in the midwest. But when you take into account the cost of living, it usually ends up being a significant paycut.

</comment><comment><USER74> 100% believe that Salary should be a mandatory field on your job board. It means the hiring team needs to have a budget for a role; plus has at least thought about the market rate and what they can pay.

</comment><comment><USER75> I'm okay with no posted salary range as long as it's discussed with either the recruiter or HR early on.

That being said, I apply for jobs based on what looks interesting, not based on the pay.

</comment><comment><USER76> It seems logical that more people would apply to jobs that include a salary in the post. I'd be far more interested to know what % of employers are satisfied with their hire if they included the salary or not. Additionally I'd want to know how many people they found were outright unqualified if they included the expected salary. My suspicion is that lots of [un|under]qualified people see a great salary and apply just hoping to luckily land the position. That's not say well-qualified people shun seeing the salary in a job post (as is obvious from the comments here) but how much signal:noise do companies get.

</comment><comment><USER77> The vast majority of innovations using the Internet here have been to service employers. I think adding more information for employees is a great benefit.

</comment><comment><USER78> A range YES absolutely. I will ignore most that don't because if they're going to not even get near my currently salary it's not even worth my time.

</comment><comment><USER79> You should also require job posts to state what the steps in their interview process are and an estimate for how long the whole process should take.

</comment><comment><USER80> Abso-frickin'-lutely.

Put another way: A job posting that doesn't disclose at least a salary range has to be _much_ more interesting for me to apply.

</comment><comment><USER81> a good salary is definitely appealing, but if I like the job (and I am searching) I am going to apply no matter if they disclose the salary upfront or not

</comment><comment><USER82> Question to job seekers: Do you disclose your current salary to employers or recruiters during the job search process?

</comment><comment><USER83> Yes, especially for those who already have a comfortable salary and a nice job.

</comment><comment><USER84> Traditional salary negotiation, which generally hurts the applicant, heavily favors a salary black-box. So, a job board like this would help people who are not interested in negotiating their salary but want to stay competitive.

</comment><comment><USER85> Yes.

However, you should not go forward with this silly job board project.

</comment><comment><USER86> Absolutely!

</comment><comment><USER87> Yes

</comment><comment><USER88> Yes.

</comment><comment><USER89> Yes.

</comment><comment><USER90> Yes.

</comment><comment><USER91> yes

</comment><comment><USER92> yes.</comment>


No, TV makers, 4K and UHD are not the same thing - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/174221-no-tv-makers-4k-and-uhd-are-not-the-same-thing

<comment><USER2> TL;DR do not look for fancy names like "4k" and "UHD", just check the tech specs by yourself.

Spotted a mistake: when explaining that "4k" designates a resolution of 4096×2160, they incorrectly label 4096 as the "vertical resolution".

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks for sharing. Even i believed they were the same. Now i know where to put my money.</comment>