Jobs You Immediately Ignore
-
@Katie is right. Very few HR people really know the job they are writing about when they submit the requirements to a job site.
-
From reading the description, it doesn't interest me. I get your point though.
-
@Minion-Queen said:
@Katie is right. Very few HR people really know the job they are writing about when they submit the requirements to a job site.
Good companies don't let HR write descriptions when they are bad at it, though. It goes both ways. Yes, it might be a fluke. But it is a big piece of the companies "face", it is how they present themselves, it is how their hire. If they can't write a job description and don't care to, how much do they care about whom they hire? How good are your coworkers likely to be if they were all filtered through a "hired by people who didn't take hiring seriously?"
It's worth looking into, yes. But it is a strike against them as well.
-
@thanksaj said:
From reading the description, it doesn't interest me. I get your point though.
That's one of the problems with a bad job description, it lowers the chance that people will find it interesting.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
From reading the description, it doesn't interest me. I get your point though.
That's one of the problems with a bad job description, it lowers the chance that people will find it interesting.
From reading it, it sounds like a lot of proprietary software support. I may be reading into it too much but that's how I read a lot of it.
-
@thanksaj I don't see that, I just see a description which says absolutely nothing about the job.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj I don't see that, I just see a description which says absolutely nothing about the job.
I may also be reading it wrong. But yeah, they lost me on this one. It's extremely non-descript.
-
This kind of sounds like a "throw everything at the wall and see who we get" type of job posting.
-
@coliver said:
This kind of sounds like a "throw everything at the wall and see who we get" type of job posting.
I'm trying to upvote this but it won't let me!
-
Finally it does!
-
@coliver I agree, they are looking specifically for people who aren't interested in anything particular, just people who "need work." Not a good starting place.
-
This is when it pays to know thyne market.
Without a company name, or a recruiter, I can't say for certain what the job will exactly entail. But knowing Richardson, we can eliminate Fossil, BCBS, Verizon, AT&T, Ericson, and a few more of the big guns. They don't write shitty job posts. From the listing and the barebones description, it's a L1 QA and/or tech support situation. And knowing Richardson, most of the jobs revolve around telcom somehow, be it Broadcom, the Samsung R&D lab, the chip foundry by ST Micro, XTE, or something like that.
That said, with that level of education, generic posting, and all other factors, my guess would be it is for Cisco.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
This is when it pays to know thyne market.
Without a company name, or a recruiter, I can't say for certain what the job will exactly entail. But knowing Richardson, we can eliminate Fossil, BCBS, Verizon, AT&T, Ericson, and a few more of the big guns. They don't write shitty job posts. From the listing and the barebones description, it's a L1 QA and/or tech support situation. And knowing Richardson, most of the jobs revolve around telcom somehow, be it Broadcom, the Samsung R&D lab, the chip foundry by ST Micro, XTE, or something like that.
That said, with that level of education, generic posting, and all other factors, my guess would be it is for Cisco.
Hmmm....no clue. Recruiter is out of NJ.
-
This post is deleted! -
@PSX_Defector said:
That said, with that level of education, generic posting, and all other factors, my guess would be it is for Cisco.
That matches with the expected low quality of expected respondent.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
That said, with that level of education, generic posting, and all other factors, my guess would be it is for Cisco.
I would say that's harsh but I've talked to one or two of their support reps..
-
@coliver said:
@PSX_Defector said:
That said, with that level of education, generic posting, and all other factors, my guess would be it is for Cisco.
I would say that's harsh but I've talked to one or two of their support reps..
It's not to say that they are dumb over there, just that Cisco might have hired a crappy recruiter.
It could be for a completely different company, no way to know without asking.
-
@coliver said:
@PSX_Defector said:
That said, with that level of education, generic posting, and all other factors, my guess would be it is for Cisco.
I would say that's harsh but I've talked to one or two of their support reps..
I saw them speak at SpiceCorps Houston, their team were not qualified at all. Really bad. Completely technically clueless. Sales people always make stuff up but their people didn't even know how to lie plausibly they were so inept. Telling people that they needed 14Tb/s connections PER desktop to be able to stream YouTube in an attempt to sell equipment that Cisco didn't even make because they had misunderstood their own press releases.
-
@thanksaj Don't be knocking Jersey now...
That said, it looks like someone scoured the web for "Basic Tech Support Template" and just cut/pasted. Especially when it comes to the Required Knowledge portion.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@PSX_Defector said:
That said, with that level of education, generic posting, and all other factors, my guess would be it is for Cisco.
I would say that's harsh but I've talked to one or two of their support reps..
I saw them speak at SpiceCorps Houston, their team were not qualified at all. Really bad. Completely technically clueless. Sales people always make stuff up but their people didn't even know how to lie plausibly they were so inept. Telling people that they needed 14Tb/s connections PER desktop to be able to stream YouTube in an attempt to sell equipment that Cisco didn't even make because they had misunderstood their own press releases.
That sounds quite extreme.
