But that's their point. When you have people with no jobs, that counts for the unemployment. But even I know how difficult it is to find people to hire for our company as I do HR for a technology firm. There is a high demand, just shortage of people to fill the positions.
Which, as far as I can see, has led to a vicious circle where developers will often refuse/bitch/complain about working on something that doesn't increase their immediate employability prospects. Not to mention CVs that quite often have a half a page or so of solid acronyms to increase the chances of being found by simplistic recruiting company search engines.
I agree. I think the logic is: "if we train them, they'll go find better paying jobs, and besides, as soon as this project is done, everyone will be laid off anyway." So everyone only wants to hire exact fit.
My experience differs - I think it was in fact the rule of thumb in the 90s... until the dotcom gold rush got sufficiently out of hand that hiring people and training them became the only reasonable solution.
This can also be a function of density of capable talent where you are. I know in my area it can take a while to get a technology position (took me 8 months) due to there being very intense competition. However I did receive more than one offer to an area that I could not afford to relocate to due to other issues (mostly taxes). It seems like there are some great disparities in where the talent is and where the jobs are. The solution would seem to be for someone (people or the company) to move or to find a way for people to be able to work from a larger area around the business.
Similarly, it would be nice to let students specify whether they are graduate/undergraduate, and maybe their field of study/interest.
I can imagine if I was paying to send an offer out to find people to solve hard CS or math problems for me, I'd be disappointed to find that 90% of the recipients were (for example) undergrad marketing majors.
When applicants receive the jobs in their inbox, when they click on the job to apply...they are asked a number of questions including being grad/undergrad, if they have github profile (for those applying for engineering jobs) and many more.
But we do have a great mix of backgrounds..about 30% marketing and the rest are engineering and design.
I don't think the name has too much to do with it. Yes, it plays a role, it shouldn't be too long and should be memorable, but there are many successful sites that have truly sad names. Just a thought
Thanks for your thought and true, the name isn't everything. But I think that a good name sure helps, especially when it comes to marketing. Color probably get a lot of traffic from being nr #1 on Google search for "color", but if you don't want to spend huge amount of money, colorapp.co or colorapp.com would probably work great as well. My point is, the name matters and adding two or three letters to a good name is better than having a short and snitzy but hard to spell name.
