Hacker News Reader

Usually you can easily explain issues such as contracts (you could also put "(Contract)" around that specific entry).

However, the "no churn" requirement bugs me too. In startups, churn of some sort is usually inevitable and healthy: not only do start-ups fail and/or down-size, but there are also changes in direction and culture. Big companies, on the other hand, have frequently changing business objections to and a little flexibility: it's too easy to get stuck in a position where one isn't learning.

Perhaps Google's approach to this is in the right vein: use the hiring process to screen for people who are "smart and get things done" (with a high degree of certainty), yet allow them to change projects/groups at will. Reward accordingly for business priorities.

However: start-ups can't afford the costs of Google's hiring process and many big-companies can't attract the sort of talent where this practice would work. As such, churn (at least for engineering) is inevitable.

On the other hand, doing a background check and actually following up on the references, should filter out the "job hoppers": people going from position to position for a raiser or promotion. In fact an ideal test would be to initially offer someone coming from a short stint a slightly lesser compensation -- and then give them an immediate raise.

oh I always put, contract or consulting on my entries. I've got like 5 contract/consulting things on my resume, 2 internships, 2 failed business attempts and 1 that I was actually fired from.

I'm pretty sure I get skipped over because people think I'm job hopping when the truth is I'm 24, I've only been given 1 real break, and in that job I found that there are just some things I'm not great at, like help desk. Technically wise I do fine, I just can't handle the phones...

also I tend not to like background checks because of the above I'm pretty sure I've a crappy credit history. I've had hard times making payments due to lack of stable work.

also I wonder if the people reading my resume, are also noting during this job hopping I've mostly been in school full time.

Churn - Consulting is fine, but if an applicant has moved too quickly between permanent jobs it's a sign that they probably won't be at yours for long. Maybe they have a recruiter friend constantly putting new offers in front of them, or maybe they are outright incompetent and are quickly fired. My hiring team calls them "jumpers", and it's one of our biggest negatives.

If you are working as a consultant, I would suggest listing the consulting company as your main job source, and any specific companies as sub-items beneath it. Make sure you don't get thrown into the jumper pile.

How short is "too quickly" ?

If the last three jobs were held <2 years.

This stat is accurate for applying >10 years ago.

Never stay at a crappy job so it appears 'better' on your resume, when I am hiring I look only at what you worked on. Many candidates of higher caliber I interviewed bounced around.

Exactly right. The employer who rejected anyone who moved around a lot (usually 12 to 18 months, with a maximum stay anywhere of around 2 years) would exclude pretty much all the best people I know.

I suppose it depends what you're looking for. A lawyer firm or family medical practise might be looking for long term stability for the sake of their patients/clients. But for programming, and I assume that most of us on "hacker news" are programmers, you want passion, initiative and the ability to actually get things done.

It's a completely natural cycle to arrive somewhere new with a new project, full of passion, and to put a lot of work into it. After a while, around 18 months for me, you're sick of it and ready to move on. There is no point, either for you or the company, at pretending otherwise and sticking around just to clock up the hours. And what you really don't want is the "lifer" mentality.

The role of "permanent full time worker" is retrograde and disappearing fast. Perhaps it's better to cast out the concept entirely and start thinking purely in terms of contracts. I suspect that a large number of the best programmers already think like this and companies that can't adapt to that will simply miss out.

What about my situation? I got a job right out of school and worked so much overtime I more or less burnt out on it. When they showed me graphs of how much money I made them and didn't even bother with a Christmas bonus I quit. The company I then went to more or less lied about what I was actually going to do so I quit there too. (Even though they were paying me twice the amount I was previously making.) I only lasted 9 months at the first job and 6 months at the second. I'm on my third job now (thankfully I like this one so I'll be here hopefully for a while) and I graduated less than 2 years ago. I suppose my resume would make me look like a job hopper so you'd hold that against me?

Yes, I would. Would you quit the first time you thought you deserved a bonus and didn't get one? You may be a good fit, but having three jobs in two years makes me nervous.

Another warning sign we look for is when somebody trashes their old company. In every case where that happened and we made the hire, that person was trashing our company within six months.

Thanks, I know it makes sense from an employer perspective, I just wanted to point out that there are exceptions so while I can understand reluctance in the interview I personally wouldn't set the resume aside and not give an interview at all.

To answer your question, no I wouldn't quit. I actually took a pay cut to work where I currently am because I thought I would enjoy the job more. (And I do.) I don't ever "expect" a bonus. Banking on a bonus I think is a really bad idea. You should get what you consider is a fair wage rather than expect a bonus to make up for whatever you think is lacking. People should be wary of companies that offer a salary that is below market average but promise bonuses or "quick pay raises". They often don't materialize.

I concur with the point about emailing the CEO, unless it's obvious the position would report directly to them. Best bet would be trying to find a direct line of communication via your social network (and by that I mean people you actually know, not people who follow you on Twitter, though the two may intersect).

As for the AOL addresses--well, if your address is tightjeans@aol.com (I've seen it on a resume), then, yeah, probably worth it to get a GMail address. But if it's jsmith@aol.com, I wouldn't worry much about it.

what do you think of mine Caleb Cushing xenoterracide@gmail.com ? would you toss my resume for that? xenoterracide is google-able, my caleb.cushing@gmail is not. I use the xenoterracide one for all my social networking, blogging, open source work.

Probably the people you want to work with won't mind, and people you don't want to work with might. I'd be careful who I sent that to if my goal was to be hired at all costs. (I don't know what your goal is.)

I don't think it would bother me, but you'd probably get an eyebrow raise from me from a guy whose handle appears to translate to "Aliens blowing up the Earth". I'm not sure I can promise that I wouldn't have at least a bit of a negative subconscious reaction. I mean, I live on the terra and all... :)