[WhosGhostin]

> Great hires are hard to find. Why not hire both? > It also cost money in time and effort for that much recruiting effort

Yes, Great hires are hard to find, and yes, it also cost money in time and effort for that much recruiting effort.

However, in the current market, great hires are getting easier to find and even if all the current team was doing was interviewing all day, every day (which is not the norm), the 1-3 months it takes to onboard an employee is the break even point.

Now when you notice that the current team does interviews an hour or so a day, unless a company was flush with cash (as MAANG was the last decade), hoarding candidates because they are hard to find, isn't capital efficient.

What's the solution? I propose increased transparency between candidates, so they can quickly figure out which companies are serious and which not.

[CoastalCoder]

> I propose increased transparency between candidates, so they can quickly figure out which companies are serious and which not.

I was considering a similar proposal, for holding recruiters, and the companies they represent, accountable for e.g. ghosting.

But I foresee a dilemma with this:

(1) To prevent abuse / lies / slander, we want to somehow tie reviews to the identities (or credentials) of the person reporting it.

(2) But given the legal risk that poses in many countries, few sane job seekers would provide such reviews. I.e., they'd be privatizing risk but for a common good.

[WhosGhostin]

> (1) To prevent abuse / lies / slander, we want to somehow tie reviews to the identities (or credentials) of the person reporting it.

Give it some more thought! There's a graph based solution that works equally well even if all participants (people providing feedback) are throwaway accounts with just one comment.