zlacker

The latter two comments seem pretty useful feedback though

>>h0h0h0+(OP)
But not interesting.

>>dang+X
[edit: before you read on bare please in mind I'm not advocating comments be enabled (like many others have assumed).]

I think it's a little redundant making a distinction between "useful" and "interesting" because either way the comment has value. However I do agree with the points you made in your other comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22767319) and that the examples given of useful/interesting comments by the GP doesn't offer a high enough value to justify the inevitable negative and other low value comments. Which I think is the real crux of the matter. Much like why political discussions are generally banned on here, the signal to noise ratio just isn't worth the few valuable comments a submission might receive.

>>laumar+23
Nobody is stopping anyone from providing that feedback through mail, so still no need for comments.

>>h0h0h0+(OP)
number 1 is pretty useful feedback for me, if they don't respond to people who apply I don't intend to take time to make a good cover letter and adapt my CV to highlight how I would be a good fit for the job.

>>411111+R7
I don't understand why you're downvoting me when you're ostensibly making the same point I was. Did you actually read my comment to the end or just made the assumption I'm wrong because I replied to dang? Because I was actually agreeing with him for the most part.

>>bryanr+g9
As a hiring manager I can assure you that is not always practical. If someone makes it to an interview, even if it's just a first stage telephone interview, then I'll readily give feedback. If some sends a CV and then asks for feedback then I will also happily provide feedback if time permits). But recruitment is a heavily time consuming process already and some positions can receive dozens or more CVs so I don't have the time to reply to every single candidate and explain to them "Thank you for applying but unfortunately we've had better CVs through." Likewise I've never expected that when applying for other jobs either.

>>laumar+K9
The distinction between "has value for the submitter of the job ad" and "has value for the entire community" is an important one. Comments that only meet the former test can just be sent directly to the submitter by email or whatever.

>>_-____+ya
Preface: before you read on bare please in mind I'm not advocating comments be enabled (like many others have assumed)

> The distinction between "has value for the submitter of the job ad" and "has value for the entire community" is an important one.

I disagree. For example if there is a typo in a URL could take a while for the poster to update it and they might not even be able to edit their submission if it's not identified in time. So if a community member says "link to xyz.com should by xyz.org" that would help other community members who wouldn't know what the correct URL was meant to be. That kind of comment has real value to everyone and not just the submitter.

> Comments that only meet the former test can just be sent directly to the submitter by email or whatever.

Lets be clear (because I've already stated this twice and it still seems to be overlooked) I'm not advocating that comments should be enabled. I agree with the point that those kind of comments are better off sent out-of-band because they don't offer enough value to justify the inevitable low value comments that would also follow. The only point I was making was that the distinction between useful and interesting shouldn't be overstated because they are typically (though obviously not always) linked.

>>laumar+ua
ok, but I would think like this:

looking for a job is a heavily time consuming process, and going to a new job is a risky process. I'm too well-situated to take that time or risk on any thing that seems off. I would have to be desperate to change that calculation.

If a company does not reply I assume there are potential reasons:

1. company is disorganized, just as a company would penalize me for seeming disorganized I will certainly do the same with a potential employer. The point of a company is in some ways to be more organized than individual humans; it is, after all, an organization. If it can't or won't be organized I won't have anything to do with them.

2. Company is rude. Treating someone badly when you have no power over them is a warning sign never to let the company have power over you.

3. Company does not have good tools setup to automate responses to people whose applications it has decided not to go further with - which is a subset of company is disorganized.

So I guess there is a mismatch between our goals and needs in the requirement process.

>>laumar+K9
> I don't understand why you're downvoting me when you're ostensibly making the same point I was.

I didn't. I couldn't even if I wanted to, as I always create a new account once downvotes are unlocked as I don't like the temptation of destroying discussions for topics I don't agree with.

>>bryanr+Qb
#3, especially: if your company has sane mail tools, it can autorespond to every single application with a variant on this:

Thanks for applying to $COMPANY.

We will get back to you by $(TODAY + 7) if we want to start a conversation.

Sincerely,

A. Robot

>>dsr_+4k
I generally give companies a week or two to reply. If they don’t ever reply, I never apply there again. Or I’ll apply and ghost them years later. Several times.

>>within+Mp
This thread is a great generic example of why job posts don't enable comments.