Congratulations, you have just reinvented a feature that LinkedIn has had for years and not solved how easily it can be gamed.

And honestly, validating skills like that is strictly something a mid level (no matter what your title is) “engineer” would do.

Every interview I have had since 2014 - and I have had 5 since then including three as a strategic hire (still hands on keyboard) by a new to the company director/CTO and one at BigTech and now full time staff consultant (cloud + app dev) has been behavioral where I had to convince then that I was “smart and gets things done”.

No matter what generic set of skills you have Kubernetes, AWS, etc, everyone and their dog have those skills - or at least enough people to make it difficult to stand out.

If you do have a niche set of skills that not every one has (raises hand) you aren’t randomly spamming ATS’s and going through all of the standard interviewing processes. You’re being pushed through by a decision maker.

You aren’t going to get hired in today’s market based on a generic set of skills without selling yourself as more than that. Every open rec gets hundreds of applications within a day.

I am currently in the pool as the for lack of a better term and stolen from Amazon (former employer) as a “bar raiser”. I’m not going to ask you about K8s trivia.

I’m going to ask you “what project are you most proud of” and then delve deep in the complexity of the project, your role and scope, your decision mskinv process etc.

▲

ms_sv 2 days ago | parent [-]

Endorsements are good way, but limited and they can be bought and can be faked easily, which does not bring much credibility.Do you think there is a way to improve the endorsement system from LinkedIn into something that will be taken more seriously?

Yes that is the main assumption, seniors would not be interested in getting their skill verified they will be doing the verifying to a junior or whatever entry title there is, in order to help them gain their credibility even mentor them, so it would be easier for them to stand out.

That is a fair point, also that is going to be part of the verification process, engineers would be able to get badges verified for their projects, atm I can AI generate a whole project and add it to my portfolio, without having to do the system design work, but if I get into the verification process, then I would be able to prove I did it if I really did by explaining my system design, decisions, compromises so on.

▲

raw_anon_1111 a day ago | parent [-]

You can’t overcome human nature. Why wouldn’t I verify any junior that asked me? That’s just like I’m never going to give someone a bad reference

How are you going to prove they did it? And in the age of AI, I expect developers to use AI to code.

That gets back to why a system like this is worthless, statistics are that people only spend 6 seconds on a resume before they decide to interview a candidate, they definitely aren’t going to take time to look at a resume. They are definitely not going to look at a GitHub profile or a third party site.

I have an anecdote from both sides.

When I left Amazon in 2023, I interviewed for a position as an architect for a company where I would be responsible for leading the integration of all the companies they acquired. I was interviewing with the director and he did his standard spiel about what the company does and some of the architecture.

I knew he hadn’t looked at my resume then. I was the architect for one of their most recent acquisitions and he was explaining the system I designed and that was clear on my resume. I had left the company to work for AWS in 2020 and I was referred by a former manager that was still there.

On my side, I never look at resumes, I don’t really care what technology you know. AI can write code and you can learn new technology. I want to know how you think through problems, how you learn, how you adapt and how you troubleshoot.

I go into every interview purposefully blind.

	▲	ms_sv 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It is not about overcoming human nature like HR tries to force things like that. > Why wouldn’t I verify any junior that asked me? This tells me that there will be people signing up to do that and earn the benefits of verifying others. AI is the hands, the person building it has to be the brain, they will have to understand what they told the AI to do so they can create accurate requirements and of course system design, so they AI can build things with less error margin. > How are you going to prove they did it? A good pilot is not the one who never uses autopilot. A good pilot is the one who knows when to trust the autopilot, when to override it, and how to land the plane manually when the screens go black. You can prove someone knows their job by looking at those moments of override and decision-making, not by staring at the autopilot screen > On my side, I never look at resumes, I don’t really care what technology you know. AI can write code and you can learn new technology. I want to know how you think through problems, how you learn, how you adapt and how you troubleshoot. This is how it should be, and I never said that I don't agree with this, the purpose of the skill verification process is to verify these things as well, as I call it for now "personality section you can put on your CV2.0", I am sure someone experienced as you can be a verifier and can easily tell how some junior, mid or senior whatever is going to be a person you wanna work with and have the qualities of critical thinking, proactive problem solving that bring value