[Baypiggies] Ban recruiters again?
aahz at pythoncraft.com
Mon Feb 22 21:29:55 CET 2010
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010, Keith Dart wrote:
> === On Mon, 02/22, Aahz wrote: ===
>> Actually, my impression is that the pool of unemployed QUALIFIED
>> candidates has already dried up around here. I was thinking this
>> weekend that it's time to re-enable the ban on recruiters. Any
> I don't think we can really know that, now or in the future. We also
> don't know if there are any currently employed that might also be
> looking. So I vote for keeping Python related job postings.
Job postings from companies have always been welcome (although a vocal
minority occasionally agitates to push them to a separate list). The
only question is whether we return to banning recruiters not associated
with a specific company.
(We voted to temporarily allow recruiters due to the recession.)
There are three reasons that I know of for banning recruiters:
* They are more likely to spam
* They are less likely to participate in discussion
* Duplicate ads
Recruiters often try to argue about whether they're breaking the first
two points when you ban them for behavior, so it's usually easier to just
ban recruiters, because even the good ones run up against the last point.
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
"Many customs in this life persist because they ease friction and promote
productivity as a result of universal agreement, and whether they are
precisely the optimal choices is much less important." --Henry Spencer
More information about the Baypiggies