Remix.run Logo
Bratmon 6 hours ago

Do you have a source on that?

It would be genuinely shocking to me if someone came up with evidence that the majority of jobs on job sites were made by companies that actually intended to hire the best candidate that applied through that site!

reticulates 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Surely you should be looking for evidence of the opposite. Why would a company create a job listing if they aren’t hiring? You are supposing there’s a global conspiracy to create fake job listings.

Every company I’ve worked at, from startups to big tech have had job listings open when they want to hire someone. Sometimes a job post will stay open for months or even years, not because it is fake but because finding the right candidate is far more important than finding a candidate.

I empathize with the frustrating experience of seeing job listings that you’re qualified for and not being hired, and certainly a lot of companies half-ass their hiring and do not review every applicant, but fake job listings make very little sense. When they do occur, it’s for obscure reasons, not because that is standard operating procedure.

The whoishiring thread here on HN regularly sees candidates accuse regularly posting companies of not actually hiring, even though there’s ample evidence these companies are hiring.

Re: the original claim about job posts being created when the company already has an internal candidate, there are very few organizations where that is necessary. A private company rarely has an obligation to consider outside candidates, it is mostly seen in government recruitment and for visa reasons. Job sites charge lots of money to list, a company wouldn’t waste money advertising a job they don’t intend to hire for.

Bratmon an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The evidence for ghost jobs existing is that a majority of hiring managers openly admit to posting ghost jobs:

https://clarifycapital.com/job-seekers-beware-of-ghost-jobs-...

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12977

I'm still waiting for they evidence they don't exist, which was conspicuously absent from your post despite its length.

reticulates 18 minutes ago | parent [-]

Did you read the Clarify Capital article? The definition of “ghost job” does not support the point you’re trying to make. The definition of “ghost job” in that article is so broad it includes pretty much every job post. A job post being open for 30 days does not make it a “ghost job” by any reasonable definition. The Congress publication includes no evidence or conclusion and even notes that the issue of ghost jobs is disputed. Did you just google ghost jobs and copy the first 2 links without reading them?

Even within this HN post there are people claiming that almost 100% of the whoishiring jobs are fake which is demonstrably untrue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49823091

Telaneo 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

https://www.resumebuilder.com/3-in-10-companies-currently-ha...

2024.