On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:13:31 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> That makes sense.  Most companies don't write more than one job
>> description per position. :)
> 
> More irritating is the fact that most websites are just listing the
> exact same jobs. The job centre want me to look at lots of different
> websites, but if they all just list identical information, what's the
> point?

Because not all companies list all their jobs on all of the job sites.

>> Maybe that have technical non-IT jobs that would be a good (or even
>> better) fit for you.  You never know until you ask.
> 
> Well, like I said, I asked, and that's all the information that seemed
> to be forthcoming.

Maybe do a quick follow-up and just ask if she's seen/heard anything new 
that's not yet been posted that you should keep your eyes open for.

> Likewise, when somebody says that knowing people instantly makes every
> job search trivial... no, that is not my experience at all. And even
> though I hear such advice from people who, objectively, it seems ought
> to know quite a bit about it, it's still really hard to believe
> something that sounds so utterly /wrong/. (A bit like quantum theory,
> actually...)

Nobody said it makes job searches "trivial".  There's part of the 
problem, you oversimplify to the point of it being absurd.

It makes it *easier*.  But there's a right way to do it, and a wrong way, 
and it still depends a bit on luck.  But there's less luck involved when 
people know (a) what you're looking for, (b) where you're looking, and 
(c) that you're interested.  Isn't *that* logical?

> Perhaps the problem isn't "knowing people", but rather "knowing /the
> right/ people"? I mean, I certainly know a tiny handful of people. But I
> don't know anybody who actually works in computing. (Well, except
> Jayne.) Almost everyone I know wouldn't know the difference between a
> computer programmer, a network administrator and a data entry clerk.
> After all, they all "do computery stuff", don't they?

How about people in this very forum?  There certainly are a lot of people 
in here who are familiar with your abilities.

You're thinking solely in meatspace - you need to include cyberspace in 
your thinking.

But also, for example, when talking to people in your dance classes, you 
can be more specific.  If they come back with a data entry job, just 
thank them for passing it along; if they ask you about it, tell them you 
looked at it and it seemed a little too entry-level for your skills, but 
you appreciated their thinking that it might be something you were 
interested in.

Because at least at that point, when they see something that includes 
"computery stuff" in the description, they're associating your name with 
it.  You can then work to refine that definition on their part with words 
like "programming", "systems administration", and other similar terms.

>>> So perhaps you could /explain/ exactly how I can turn the fact that I
>>> know people into offers of employment. :-P
>>
>> It takes time, of course.  It takes a certain amount of luck, too.
> 
> I thought "luck" was just about the /only/ requirement for getting
> hired?

Absolutely not.  It takes making a good case, and a fair bit of hard 
work.  Most employers will be forgiving of people who aren't professional 
job seekers (and will tend to steer clear of those who are professional 
job seekers), because their expertise isn't in finding a job, it's in 
programming/systems admin/whatever.

> Well, that's true enough. But as I say, most people I know wouldn't have
> a clue what my ideal job looks like. And I've mentioned it enough, yet
> nobody is coming forward. Because, as I say, nobody knows anything that
> would help me.

You're a good writer.  Start by writing up what, to you, would be your 
dream job (and an actual job, not something described as a job where 
"they pay you to sit on your butt all day and surf the 'net rather than 
doing actual work" or "they pay me and don't care what I do" - it needs 
to be realistic).  Then distill it down into a sentence or two.

In short, start by writing your own job description for your ideal job.

>> It's the way most people find work.  That your very limited experience
>> doesn't match up to the reality doesn't mean that reality is wrong.
> 
> "Most people"? Damn. If that's actually true, wouldn't the entire
> recruitment industry be out of a job?

Certainly the recruitment industry isn't huge here.  There's a few 
places, but in my experience most US companies post their own jobs rather 
than going through a recruiter.  Remember the lens I'm looking through is 
mostly a US-centric one (for the most part).

But even still, I talk with/network with people in the UK fairly 
regularly.

>> That fact is actually irrelevant.  You might need to remind them where
>> you worked and what you did, but having worked with auditors myself,
>> people who make it EASY for them to do their jobs are rare and
>> memorable.
> 
> Really? Because, I would have imagined it's a bit like being in IT. When
> everything is working how it should, nobody even gives you a second
> though. When stuff stops working, they come hammering on your door
> demanding to know why you're not doing your job right. And once it's
> fixed, they forget about you again. [No, you will not get any thanks. It
> is of course your fault that it broke in the first place.]

Remember what I said about your experience being limited?  You worked for 
a sucky company that didn't give you a second thought.  That doesn't mean 
*all* employers give their IT staff short shrift.

Most companies that I've dealt with staff from actually treat their IT 
staff with respect.  Not all of them (I worked for one like the one you 
worked for, you'll recall), but most of them.

> There are a lot of things like that - stuff that nobody thinks about,
> until it goes wrong. I would imagine auditing is like that; you remember
> that company you had to audit which was a total nightmare, but you
> forget the millions of audits that went perfectly smoothly...

That's not my experience working with licensing auditors, as I 
explained.  The auditors remembered the good one because it was the 
exception.  The exceptions tend to be more memorable.

>> The second time they came back, they remembered the previous experience
>> and, knowing they were going to be dealing with me again, they planned
>> accordingly.  They got done in half a day what normally took them 2-3
>> days at least because I was prepared and available.
> 
> ...then again, I am not an auditor...

That doesn't mean you couldn't be for the right kind of auditing (like 
license auditing, for example).

> That's like saying "if you drove around London a lot, you'd find ways to
> make it easy". Which is nonsense of course, because /everybody/ finds it
> a nightmare to drive anywhere in London. Now of course, Oxford isn't
> London. But that doesn't mean that the same cannot be true.

There's a difference between finding it a figurative nightmare to get 
around and finding an optimal way to get around London.  I know people 
who live in London and who work in London, and they've optimized their 
routes and times.  Hell, driving to Provo, UT is something of a pain in 
the butt at the wrong time of the day.  For me, the commute is typically 
45 minutes, but I've had times where it's taken twice that if I leave at 
the wrong time.

But the route I use is fairly optimal (and the only choice, honestly), 
and most of the time it's not too bad.

>> You might try casting a wider net.
> 
> Maybe in 9 months' time when I still don't have a job, I'll consider it.

I don't know that I'd wait that long, personally - you don't have 9 
months' salary banked up (guessing), so that means you're completely out 
of money before casting a wider net.

Again, if that ideal job is out there now but it's not in the locale 
you're looking at right now, it may well be gone in 9 months (probably 
will be, actually), and you'd have missed it.  Cast the wider net earlier 
to find those jobs.

> Currently I'm only considering jobs that I'd actually want to have.

No, because you're not considering jobs you'd actually want to have if 
they were outside of a 50 mile radius (or whatever).  That's not the same 
as considering a job that you'd actually want to have that was based in 
London but only required you be there once a month.

> Because let's face it, do I really want to spend the next ten years
> doing an unpleasant job just because I was a bit impatient?

Turn that question around:  Do you really want to spend the next 10 years 
turning down job offers because no job was good enough for you to accept 
an offer when made because it wasn't the perfect fit?

>> Do some research on companies in London as well, and rather than going
>> through recruiting websites where you don't know the company, go to the
>> company website and look at their careers page.
> 
> Well, that's a valid strategy. [Although there's no particular reason to
> focus on companies based on one specific city. Rather, just look for
> companies that might have a base nearby.] It does have the advantage
> that you don't have to deal with worthless agencies.

Right. :)

> OTOH, it has the disadvantage that you can't connect with small local
> companies this way. But more pressingly, there are, like, seventy
> billion companies in this country. How the hell do you figure out which
> ones might be hiring in a nearby area?

You can, but you have to dig a little deeper to find the small local 
companies.

>> For example, try bt.co.uk.  Bottom of the page, "Careers".  Follow the
>> links to the open positions.
>>
>> Then go to LinkedIn and look there for job postings.  Or to see if
>> there's anyone in your network who's at BT (or who knows someone at
>> BT).
> 
> I wouldn't work for BT if you paid me. They are an extremely bad
> employer. But the point stands.

That's an example of how to do this sort of search.  I don't care if it's 
the BT website you look at or Google or Microsoft or whomever.  The point 
is that most companies have a careers page and list jobs on them.

> I'm not sure why you'd look in LinkedIn for jobs though. If the company
> has any, it'll be on their website. LinkedIn just has a badly formatted
> copy of the same information. What does that add to the proposition?

The one job I interviewed for in Oregon was a job I wouldn't have seen if 
I hadn't looked on LinkedIn.  LinkedIn has visibility, and employers are 
seeing that, so while the job may be posted on their website as well, I 
wouldn't have ever thought to look at that company's website (didn't even 
know the existed, honestly) unless I'd seen the job posting on LinkedIn.

But you need to also update your profile with relevant skills and the 
name of your previous employer.  They have algorithms that use that 
information to suggest jobs you might be interested in.  My experience 
has been that they tend to be more geographically diverse than I'd like 
(for example, I get suggestions for companies in Tennessee and Kentucky, 
both places I wouldn't want to move to for various reasons), but those 
postings give me ideas for job titles to look for that I might not have 
otherwise considered.

Jim

Post a reply to this message