Post by thread:[BUY] Web Developer, Contract

If you know any web developers in Phoenix, please pass this on: http://tinyurl.com/37u92ck ============= Short summary: Job Description ScanTool.net LLC is an internet-based company (f. 2002), and a leading manufacturer of on-board diagnostics (OBD) products for the consumer and industrial markets. We are looking for a web developer for a temporary (3-6 months) on-site contract assignment. The ideal candidate is an intellingent, self-motivated perfectionist who takes the time to understand the requirements, doesn't mind working alone, and takes pride in their work. Required knowledge, skills, and experience Highly proficient in PHP, MySQL, and HTML/CSS/JavaScript Experience working with complex databases Django experience a big plus Magento experience, although optional, is a huge plus

Vitaliy wrote: > The ideal candidate is an intellingent, self-motivated > perfectionist > who takes the time to understand the requirements, doesn't mind > working alone, > and takes pride in their work. How many people do you really think will weed themselves out because they believe they are dumb, need to be told everything to do, sloppy, like to skip over docs and start banging out code, like to work in a zoo, or don't give a crap? ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

How many people do you really think college will weed out because they are dumb, need to be told everything to do, sloppy, like to skip over docs and start banging out code, like to work in a zoo, or don't give a crap? Kerry Olin Lathrop wrote: {Quote hidden}> Vitaliy wrote: > >> The ideal candidate is an intellingent, self-motivated >> perfectionist >> who takes the time to understand the requirements, doesn't mind >> working alone, >> and takes pride in their work. >> > > How many people do you really think will weed themselves out because they > believe they are dumb, need to be told everything to do, sloppy, like to > skip over docs and start banging out code, like to work in a zoo, or don't > give a crap? > > > ******************************************************************** > Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products > (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. > -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 267.11.13 - Release Date: 10/6/05

Olin Lathrop wrote: >> The ideal candidate is an intellingent, self-motivated >> perfectionist >> who takes the time to understand the requirements, doesn't mind >> working alone, >> and takes pride in their work. > > How many people do you really think will weed themselves out because they > believe they are dumb, need to be told everything to do, sloppy, like to > skip over docs and start banging out code, like to work in a zoo, or don't > give a crap? I think we'll never know the answer to that question; if they weed themselves out, we'll never hear from them, right?

Vitaliy wrote: >> How many people do you really think will weed themselves out because >> they believe they are dumb, need to be told everything to do, >> sloppy, like to skip over docs and start banging out code, like to >> work in a zoo, or don't give a crap? > > I think we'll never know the answer to that question; if they weed > themselves out, we'll never hear from them, right? Actually you can answer the question if you read it carefully. My point however was that very few are going to think to themselves "Nah, I don't care about my work quality, so this job's obviously not for me". In other words, your extra qualifier is content free and pointless as it currently stands. ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

Olin Lathrop wrote: >>> How many people do you really think will weed themselves out because >>> they believe they are dumb, need to be told everything to do, >>> sloppy, like to skip over docs and start banging out code, like to >>> work in a zoo, or don't give a crap? >> >> I think we'll never know the answer to that question; if they weed >> themselves out, we'll never hear from them, right? > > Actually you can answer the question if you read it carefully. My point > however was that very few are going to think to themselves "Nah, I don't > care about my work quality, so this job's obviously not for me". In other > words, your extra qualifier is content free and pointless as it currently > stands. Humor aside, the "extra qualifier" is there not to *weed* the wrong people out (although we can't completely rule out the possibility) but to *attract* the right kind. AFAICT it works, because several co-workers told me that they applied to the posting because it "was the right fit" and therefore "stood out". People make certain inferences, for example about the company culture and the likely traits of people they will be working with. Russell quipped: > I'd be more concerned about the wisdom of wanting to employ a > perfectionist. Experience shows that few people suffer from excessive perfectionism. :-) I'm not a perfectionist by nature; my desk is often a mess, and there is another engineer who prefers to increase the work surface area (going as far as adding a shelf, and putting stuff on top of empty boxes) rather than spend the time organizing his desk. The guy who works next to him is a neat freak: his desk is always in perfect order, and all of his tools bear a label with his name. However, both have to be perfectionists when it comes to their work. Vitaliy

On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:32:42 -0700, "Vitaliy" said: > Humor aside, the "extra qualifier" is there not to *weed* the wrong > people > out (although we can't completely rule out the possibility) but to > *attract* > the right kind. AFAICT it works, because several co-workers told me that > they applied to the posting because it "was the right fit" and therefore > "stood out". People make certain inferences, for example about the > company > culture and the likely traits of people they will be working with. Not only that, it helps to tell people what you want, and the relative importance of quality. It is an aid in selecting what examples of their work to show you, or when describing past experience, a facet of a project they made a particular decision on, etc. Writing a good job ad is not easy, and I think yours was quite well done. Bob -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

Too much binary thinking on the list... You are right. People aren't going to evaluate based on the inverse of the individual qualities, but rather compare the whole against a self image. It should be obvious what "self-motivated" means in this context, as well as the other attributes. There are plenty of people who are motivated well enough to get up and go to work, are happy with that, would not call themselves lazy, but also wouldn't describe themselves "self-motivated", except perhaps relative to beer and the fridge... I suspect that if you can't argue that you're self motivated to yourself, lazy tag not even considered, you won't fit. The description gave me a very good feel for the priorities and culture of the place, and what they wanted. If I were looking, the next step would be a self evaluation in that context. Well done. -Skip On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 12:32 -0700, Vitaliy wrote: > Humor aside, the "extra qualifier" is there not to *weed* the wrong people > out (although we can't completely rule out the possibility) but to *attract* > the right kind. AFAICT it works, because several co-workers told me that > they applied to the posting because it "was the right fit" and therefore > "stood out". People make certain inferences, for example about the company > culture and the likely traits of people they will be working with.

I put statements like this in job postings as well, but not so much to filter out personalities, but to hold people accountable later should the need arise. FWIW, I've noticed with job postings that the responses vary by culture. In Austin, TX, people are more self-filtering, but in S. Florida everyone claims to do everything, and will fumble being able to even know what most of the words on a job posting means. They didn't even bother to google the words/acronyms, but then they'll try to convince me in the middle of an interview that they can learn really quick. Ugh! :( Cheers, -Neil. Quoting Dr Skip <.....drskipKILLspam@spam@gmail.com>: {Quote hidden}> Too much binary thinking on the list... > > You are right. People aren't going to evaluate based on the inverse of > the individual qualities, but rather compare the whole against a self > image. It should be obvious what "self-motivated" means in this context, > as well as the other attributes. There are plenty of people who are > motivated well enough to get up and go to work, are happy with that, > would not call themselves lazy, but also wouldn't describe themselves > "self-motivated", except perhaps relative to beer and the fridge... > > I suspect that if you can't argue that you're self motivated to > yourself, lazy tag not even considered, you won't fit. > > The description gave me a very good feel for the priorities and culture > of the place, and what they wanted. If I were looking, the next step > would be a self evaluation in that context. Well done. > > -Skip > > > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 12:32 -0700, Vitaliy wrote: > >> Humor aside, the "extra qualifier" is there not to *weed* the wrong people >> out (although we can't completely rule out the possibility) but to *attract* >> the right kind. AFAICT it works, because several co-workers told me that >> they applied to the posting because it "was the right fit" and therefore >> "stood out". People make certain inferences, for example about the company >> culture and the likely traits of people they will be working with. > > >