zlacker

>>whoish+(OP)
I've applied half dozen times to positions in Mumbai, India but haven't heard back once

>>quaint+Pi
We agree that companies should reply to applicants, but please don't break the rules at the top of Who Is Hiring threads.

We detached this comment from >>45093824 .

>>dang+Zl
p.s. Here's a bunch of past mod explanations about this, if anyone wants to understand why we have this rule:

>>44772030 (Aug 2025)

>>44770591 (Aug 2025)

>>44161363 (June 2025)

>>40239393 (May 2024)

>>39222099 (Feb 2024)

>>37759361 (Oct 2023)

>>37759152 (Oct 2023)

>>37741801 (Oct 2023)

>>37397355 (Sept 2023)

>>37354391 (Sept 2023)

>>36158274 (June 2023)

>>35818403 (May 2023)

>>32335600 (Aug 2022)

>>29408468 (Dec 2021)

>>28385149 (Sept 2021)

>>24984132 (Nov 2020)

>>22667632 (March 2020)

>>22244528 (Feb 2020)

>>16987471 (May 2018)

>>9822899 (July 2015)

>>dang+Sm
How are companies allowed to post the same posting for the same roles month after month? If they are not able to find great candidate fits in this environment, and their employee counts are not moving on LinkedIn / crunchbase etc for months, can they get blacklisted from using this? I have seen several of these companies post again today

>>Bighea+1o4
We're not in a position to police that. We don't have the resources.

Even apart from that, I'm not sure how one could distinguish legit from non-legit cases, short of raiding company offices.

>>dang+uu4
Let the market decide, I.e.: people comment and call out companies that do that. If the company cares, they can defend themselves, the same way we’re trying to defend the HN community.

I’ve pointed this out before [1], we need a way to call out bad actors, and not allowing for such comments is only protecting bad actors.

1: >>44441921

>>kassne+F75
Such a 'market' would need to be regulated (or managed, or supported, pick whatever word you like) - it won't work as a free-for-all, and we don't have the resources to act as arbiter. That's the point I've been making in all those explanations I listed.

Basically it would need to be a product in its own right. That may well be valuable, there's probably a need for it, — in that sense I agree with you and the other commenters making similar points. But it's not something HN can be.

> not allowing for such comments is only protecting bad actors

It also protects good actors. There are bad and good actors on both the supply and demand side of these transactions. It's easy to forget that if one is personally identified only with one side or the other, but the hiring market is fraught these days.