<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>eropple</author><text>&lt;i&gt;&amp;gt; I didn&amp;#x27;t want to get candidates purely motivated by the high cash comp in the area.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is an extreme red flag for me. While your motives may be better, as I don&amp;#x27;t know you and won&amp;#x27;t assume, I&amp;#x27;ve never met a potential employer who said that who wasn&amp;#x27;t trying to run a cult. I contend that there is no &amp;quot;employee friendly&amp;quot; company (outside of cooperatives, which don&amp;#x27;t really exist in tech) and that company culture is generally used to exert pressure to make people overwork themselves for somebody else&amp;#x27;s gain.&lt;p&gt;The best people, as well as best developers, I&amp;#x27;ve ever worked with are nearly fully coin-operated (with obvious carve-outs for &amp;quot;not working for terrible people,&amp;quot; etc.). They do excellent work, expect to be paid well for it, and &lt;i&gt;go home&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;p&gt;If they &amp;quot;play hard,&amp;quot; it&amp;#x27;s not with their co-workers.</text><parent_chain><item><author>GreenPlastic</author><text>Fair enough, but the information is publicly available on glassdoor.&lt;p&gt;A couple reasons why I didn&amp;#x27;t list comp:&lt;p&gt;1. I didn&amp;#x27;t want to get candidates purely motivated by the high cash comp in the area.
2. Cash comp isn&amp;#x27;t core to how the company markets itself to employees and its culture. The company prefers to sell itself on being an employee friendly place to work.&lt;p&gt;Like the article hypothesizes, I thought we&amp;#x27;d get 50-100 resumes because it&amp;#x27;s so easy to apply for jobs on the internet and was surprised at how few we actually got.</text></item><item><author>smil</author><text>So compensation is not relevant to your point at all since you didn&amp;#x27;t list it. Or were you looking for mind readers? The low response rate makes sense in that case.</text></item><item><author>GreenPlastic</author><text>Posted a senior iOS dev position to Indeed, LinkedIn, Glassdoor where the company is paying 25%(maybe 40% if you include RSUs) above market here (although we don&amp;#x27;t put comp in the job listing) and only got 3 applicants in a month.</text></item><item><author>alister</author><text>&amp;gt; What&amp;#x27;s changed over the past fifteen years is that the internet has dramatically decreased the cost of identify in an open job listing and sending in an application. The stack of resumes you need to read through in order to start scheduling interviews has just gotten longer. The easier you make it to apply for jobs, the slower the hiring process becomes.&lt;p&gt;The above explanation of why it now takes employers
longer to fill open jobs isn&amp;#x27;t convincing. Perhaps it
would make sense if you received:&lt;p&gt;(a) 10,000 resumes for a single opening (but that
doesn&amp;#x27;t happen)&lt;p&gt;(b) 50 resumes from 50 different Nobel laureates and
you were torn trying to decide which one is best
(but that doesn&amp;#x27;t happen either)&lt;p&gt;My experience is that if you got 5 resumes pre-Internet,
you&amp;#x27;d get 50 post-Internet. But the additional screening
is negligible. I found that I can immediately reject 45
of the 50 resumes after looking at them for a minute
each because so many of the resumes are unqualified.&lt;p&gt;You might say that that is 45 minutes lost, but
even a single interview will take longer than that.
It&amp;#x27;s insignificant to the overall hiring process.&lt;p&gt;Maybe what really happens is that in large HR-driven
companies, the HR department forces the hiring manager
to interview many more incompetent or unqualified people
because they got so many resumes to choose from.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Why is it taking longer and longer to fill open jobs?</title><url>http://www.vox.com/2015/6/20/8815561/job-vacancy-duration</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Sir_Substance</author><text>&amp;gt;The company prefers to sell itself on being an employee friendly place to work.&lt;p&gt;You can sell your company however you like, but at the end of the day, you&amp;#x27;re offering to pay me money for my time. It&amp;#x27;s an important part of my assessment of your job offer that I know how much. Sending out CV&amp;#x27;s is stressful, and I have to prep for interviews on a per-job basis.&lt;p&gt;If you won&amp;#x27;t tell me how much you pay until after the interview, your job offer gets put on the &amp;quot;too coy to be worth dealing with&amp;quot; pile, along with all the people who only let you contact them via webform.</text><parent_chain><item><author>GreenPlastic</author><text>Fair enough, but the information is publicly available on glassdoor.&lt;p&gt;A couple reasons why I didn&amp;#x27;t list comp:&lt;p&gt;1. I didn&amp;#x27;t want to get candidates purely motivated by the high cash comp in the area.
2. Cash comp isn&amp;#x27;t core to how the company markets itself to employees and its culture. The company prefers to sell itself on being an employee friendly place to work.&lt;p&gt;Like the article hypothesizes, I thought we&amp;#x27;d get 50-100 resumes because it&amp;#x27;s so easy to apply for jobs on the internet and was surprised at how few we actually got.</text></item><item><author>smil</author><text>So compensation is not relevant to your point at all since you didn&amp;#x27;t list it. Or were you looking for mind readers? The low response rate makes sense in that case.</text></item><item><author>GreenPlastic</author><text>Posted a senior iOS dev position to Indeed, LinkedIn, Glassdoor where the company is paying 25%(maybe 40% if you include RSUs) above market here (although we don&amp;#x27;t put comp in the job listing) and only got 3 applicants in a month.</text></item><item><author>alister</author><text>&amp;gt; What&amp;#x27;s changed over the past fifteen years is that the internet has dramatically decreased the cost of identify in an open job listing and sending in an application. The stack of resumes you need to read through in order to start scheduling interviews has just gotten longer. The easier you make it to apply for jobs, the slower the hiring process becomes.&lt;p&gt;The above explanation of why it now takes employers
longer to fill open jobs isn&amp;#x27;t convincing. Perhaps it
would make sense if you received:&lt;p&gt;(a) 10,000 resumes for a single opening (but that
doesn&amp;#x27;t happen)&lt;p&gt;(b) 50 resumes from 50 different Nobel laureates and
you were torn trying to decide which one is best
(but that doesn&amp;#x27;t happen either)&lt;p&gt;My experience is that if you got 5 resumes pre-Internet,
you&amp;#x27;d get 50 post-Internet. But the additional screening
is negligible. I found that I can immediately reject 45
of the 50 resumes after looking at them for a minute
each because so many of the resumes are unqualified.&lt;p&gt;You might say that that is 45 minutes lost, but
even a single interview will take longer than that.
It&amp;#x27;s insignificant to the overall hiring process.&lt;p&gt;Maybe what really happens is that in large HR-driven
companies, the HR department forces the hiring manager
to interview many more incompetent or unqualified people
because they got so many resumes to choose from.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Why is it taking longer and longer to fill open jobs?</title><url>http://www.vox.com/2015/6/20/8815561/job-vacancy-duration</url></story>