> Seriously, if I did an Internet search and blindly applied for every
> single job that turned up [which is probably a bad idea], that would
> still only take, like, an hour or so. What are the other 7 for?

???

I think it took about an hour *per job* when I was applying - you can't 
tailor your CV and cover letter for an application within 5 minutes, you 
also should be spending some time researching the company you are 
applying for.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2012 08:22 AM, scott wrote:
> I think it took about an hour *per job* when I was applying - you can't
> tailor your CV and cover letter for an application within 5 minutes, you
> also should be spending some time researching the company you are
> applying for.

Well, there's two schools of thought here.

You can spend weeks researching the company, analysing the job spec, 
trying to distil what they're looking for, and finely crafting your CV 
to match, and only then applying.

Or you can write the best CV you can, and just send it to as many people 
as possible.

Currently I'm going with the latter approach. Most of the jobs I'm 
applying for I probably don't stand a hope in hell of getting anyway, so 
it seems wasteful to expend huge amounts of energy on something which is 
probably futile.

I do make exceptions, of course. When I applied to Google, I spent weeks 
customising my CV. (Then again, it's Google, the industry's best 
employer.) But for the most part, I just send out lots of applications. 
So far it's got me to two interviews, equalling my previous lifetime 
best. And it's only been a few weeks...

Post a reply to this message

> See, that's the thing - knowing somebody doesn't actually get you hired.
> I suppose it might plausibly let you hear about a job you wouldn't
> otherwise hear about... but if you're doing daily Internet searches,
> you're going to find this stuff anyway. (Or it's not advertised, in
> which case you can't apply for it.) Again, it's not like insider
> knowledge actually gets you any nearer to your goal.

The last 3 people who started in my office had no formal interview and 
there certainly weren't any adverts anywhere, they were just known by 
others in the office from previous jobs.

My girlfriend got her job by knowing a manager, she still had to send in 
an application form but it was a formality, they didn't even bother 
looking at the other applications, even though surely there would have 
been people better qualified and with more experience.

I'm sure others here have similar experiences, it's quite common. And 
even if you can't bypass the official application/interview procedure, 
you can get the name/email of the best person to send your CV to, the 
right things to say, get someone to put in a good word for you etc. It's 
not what you know it's who you know :-)

Post a reply to this message

> Well, there's two schools of thought here.
>
> You can spend weeks researching the company, analysing the job spec,
> trying to distil what they're looking for, and finely crafting your CV
> to match, and only then applying.
>
> Or you can write the best CV you can, and just send it to as many people
> as possible.

Really, both of those extremes are a very bad idea.

If you have 8 hours a day then scheduling 1 hour for customising your CV 
and researching the company sounds about right. That way you should get 
out 8 high quality applications each day.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2012 09:11 AM, scott wrote:
> It's not what you know it's who you know :-)

On the one hand, I've only ever had one job - and that's because my dad 
worked there.

On the other hand, I know people who work at the OU, and yet I can't get 
a job at the OU. I know somebody who works for Network Rail, and yet I 
can't get a job at Network Rail. Hell, I know a guy who works at Google, 
and I can't get them to hire me either. (Although, amazingly, I did get 
an interview...)

You see what I'm saying? Just knowing somebody who works at company X 
doesn't seem to help you actually get in there. (Unless the company is 
the kind of hopelessly unprofessional place like where I left just...)

In short, I know a tiny handful of people, but I'm not sure how to /use/ 
that to get hired.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2012 09:15 AM, scott wrote:
> If you have 8 hours a day then scheduling 1 hour for customising your CV
> and researching the company sounds about right. That way you should get
> out 8 high quality applications each day.

Well, if you're going to spend an entire hour on each application, you 
need to be /very/ picky about which jobs you bother applying to. (And to 
think everybody keeps telling me I'm /already/ being too picky...)

Also, like I said, at the point where you apply, you usually have /no 
idea/ who the company is. You just know who the recruitment agency is. 
It's kind of hard to research a company when you don't know who they are.

Post a reply to this message

> Well, if you're going to spend an entire hour on each application, you
> need to be /very/ picky about which jobs you bother applying to. (And to
> think everybody keeps telling me I'm /already/ being too picky...)

I don't think anyone would advise you to apply for more than 8 jobs per 
day. That's 40 a week.

> Also, like I said, at the point where you apply, you usually have /no
> idea/ who the company is. You just know who the recruitment agency is.
> It's kind of hard to research a company when you don't know who they are.

You call the recruitment agency and ask then.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-09-20 04:15, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 20/09/2012 09:11 AM, scott wrote:
>> It's not what you know it's who you know :-)
>
> On the one hand, I've only ever had one job - and that's because my dad
> worked there.
>

Proof that networking works!  You got your first job because of your 
connections.

> On the other hand, I know people who work at the OU, and yet I can't get
> a job at the OU. I know somebody who works for Network Rail, and yet I
> can't get a job at Network Rail. Hell, I know a guy who works at Google,
> and I can't get them to hire me either. (Although, amazingly, I did get
> an interview...)
>
> You see what I'm saying? Just knowing somebody who works at company X
> doesn't seem to help you actually get in there. (Unless the company is
> the kind of hopelessly unprofessional place like where I left just...)
>

You rarely win the lotto with your first ticket.

> In short, I know a tiny handful of people, but I'm not sure how to /use/
> that to get hired.

As I've said before... you take dance classes.  Ask the people in your 
class if they have openings at their workplace.  Even if they're 
marketing assistants or dentists, they may know that their IT dept. is 
looking for people.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:34:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 19/09/2012 6:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> You do have control over how many interviews you get invited to - if
>> you get 'x' interviews for 'y' CVs sent out, you have some degree of
>> control of how many interviews you may get.
>>
>>
> I would not say that it is a linear relationship though.

True, it is more complex than that.  Hence the next statement:

>> Conversely, if you send out no CVs, you get no interviews.  That's also
>> in your control.
> 
> That is very true.

:)

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:33:20 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 19/09/2012 4:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The money is very good (but it's all pre-tax, so here in the US, we
>> have to submit a quarterly estimate and pay our taxes with that
>> estimate).
> 
> In the UK you can start your own company as a sole trader. That way you
> can get tax breaks. (I won’t say what but it is all legal above board
> and not offshore.) And I just found out last week from my accountant
> that there is a tax scheme where you can pay a flat rate of VAT (sales
> tax). So if your turnover is less than GBP 150000 you charge 20% to the
> client or agency and pay back 14.5% to the Inland Revenue and you don’t
> have to do much paperwork. :-)

Yeah, you can do stuff like that here in the US.  I haven't yet because I 
hadn't expected to be doing contract work for so long.

Once I know what's happening after this gig, I'll decide whether I'm 
setting up a sole proprietorship or something similar myself.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:55:35 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> What makes you think I'm not doing it?
>>
>> You've been out of work for how long now?
> 
> Strictly speaking, 19 days.
> 
>> How many CVs have you sent out?
> 
> I've only really started properly keeping track the last week or so. But
> a rough count shows that in the last few weeks, I've sent out roughly
> 50+ job applications.

Have you kept track of who you've sent the CVs to?  You wouldn't want to 
send one twice for the same posting....

>> How many interviews have you given?
> 
> So far I've only been invited for 2 interviews. I did get a phone call
> yesterday suggesting that I may or may not be invited for one next week.

That's good.

>>> What can you actually *do* for 8 hours straight, every single day,
>>> which will have any meaningful impact on your chances of finding work?
>>
>> When's the last time you visited the job centre in your area?
> 
> Friday. You have to in order to claim JSA. Not sure how visiting a job
> centre is supposed to improve your chances of getting work though...

It gets you out of the house.  One of the things that I've learned is 
without the delimiter of a workday, it's easy to get distracted.  I 
worked from home for the better part of 8 years, but losing that 
structure in my day made it hard for me to focus on the job search.

Getting out of the house helps set that delimiter and can help focus your 
time.

>> Have you been in touch with any of your former coworkers and asked them
>> how their searches are going?
> 
> How would that help? They all live in Coventry, and they're all looking
> for lab work, not IT.

So?  When I was laid off, I kept in touch with sales people and others 
who were laid off when I was.  It's not like the labs they're looking at 
going to work for have no IT infrastructure and no staff needs in that 
area.  It's not like they don't know people who might know something.

Keeping your name and skills in their minds means when they see something 
that might be a fit, they'll think to pass the lead along to you (and you 
should do the same for them).  But be specific, tell them what type of 
work you're looking for - don't just say "if you see something you think 
might be a fit for me, let me know".

> Basically, I don't know anybody in computing. With the exception of
> Jayne - who keeps telling me that I should come work for Network Rail.
> Which sounds like a great idea, except that they don't have any
> computer-related jobs going.

Not publicly posted.  Maybe she knows something internal or can find out 
something that hasn't been posted yet.  You don't know if you don't ask.

> See, that's the thing - knowing somebody doesn't actually get you hired.

Sorry, that's bullshit.  I wouldn't have the current contract I'm on if I 
didn't know people.  I wouldn't have gotten the job that let me move to 
Utah if I didn't know people.  I wouldn't have gotten the training job at 
Novell if I didn't know people.  Knowing people is the *most* common way 
to get your foot in the door.

A former coworker of mine applied for a job with a local company; he 
didn't know anyone there, but I did, so I introduced him.  Guess what - 
he got the job, in part due to my recommendation to two former coworkers 
who passed my recommendation along to the hiring manager.

> I suppose it might plausibly let you hear about a job you wouldn't
> otherwise hear about... but if you're doing daily Internet searches,
> you're going to find this stuff anyway. (Or it's not advertised, in
> which case you can't apply for it.) Again, it's not like insider
> knowledge actually gets you any nearer to your goal.

Again, that's total bullshit not based on how the real world works.  
*Most* of the people I know who both work in the job search business (and 
yes, that's actually a business) report time and time again that insider 
contacts are the single most important thing to have in a job search next 
to the skills necessary to do the job.

Personal recommendations from current employees go a LONG way.

>> Have you contacted any of the government auditors you worked with in
>> reviewing your former employer's compliance?  You did pretty good with
>> that, and they may remember that and know of a company that could use
>> your skills.
> 
> Lab companies are /very/ few and far between - this is exactly the
> problem my dad is currently having. He has 30+ years of experience in
> lab work, but he can't find any labs to apply to. And labs need /lots/
> of scientists. They only need /one/ IT guy.

Depends on the lab.  But this is a place where your insider contact at 
the auditing agency could well help you and your dad out.  Wouldn't it be 
nice if in addition to finding yourself a job, you were able to leverage 
your contacts in the auditing agency to find a lab for your dad to work 
for?  Pay him back for helping you get your first job (which, BTW, is 
another example of an insider helping someone get a job).

>> It's not like they'll arrest you for contacting them.  For that matter,
>> having prepared audits means you're well-positioned to conduct them as
>> well.
> 
> I didn't really "prepare" audits. I wrote documentation which we are
> legally required to have. The auditors' job is to come and look at it.
> Writing documentation which you think will fend off auditors is one
> thing. Knowing all the legal scriptures required to properly audit
> someone is another thing entirely.

You prepared documentation that successfully met the auditing 
requirements.  Whether you believe it or not, that actually does count 
for something.  Get hold of one of the auditors who went over your 
documentation and see if they know of anyone who's looking for someone 
with your skills.  The worst that happens is that they don't.  The best 
is that maybe you get a lead and a recommendation from an auditor who was 
impressed by what you did.

Which would count a lot as recommendations go.  Hiring someone who you 
know is capable of writing documentation to satisfy an audit = quite 
valuable to the right company.

> On top of that, if labs are rare, lab auditors are far, far rarer.

Which doesn't mean that they're not looking to hire one, or to hire 
someone to train on the actual regulations.

> If anything, all we can say is that I have experience of working in a
> tightly controlled environment, that I'm good at writing documentation
> which is appropriate for its intended audience, and that I can explain
> complex concepts to nontechnical people. (Believe me, most lab auditors
> know everything there is to know about freeze-thaw stability testing,
> but know bugger all about computers.)
> 
> There are all worthy skills, of course, but it's not like having worked
> in a lab specifically is going to really open doors.

It doesn't have to.  They may work with auditing other businesses as 
well, or the specific auditor may have worked with other organizations 
outside that environment.

>> ISTR you ruled out going to Oxford fairly quickly.
> 
> I tried to travel there. It was hell. Just for one day, and it was hell.
> I don't want that every day.

You had one bad experience - your first, it sounded like - and decided 
that maybe familiarity wouldn't actually help, so you gave up.

>> You ruled out London fairly quickly - both based on the assumption that
>> you'd have to go to the office every day to work.  That's not a good
>> assumption.
> 
> The Oxford company TOLD ME that I would have to come there every day.
> That's not an assumption, that's fact.

Sure, but that's not the only company in Oxford.  Don't miss the point 
that you've ruled out Oxford based on one days' experience when you had 
no prior knowledge of how to find your way around.

It's also possible that they told you that you'd have to be there every 
day, but that not being able/willing is a dealbreaker.  True, sometimes 
it is - I applied for a position with a global company based in Ft. 
Lauderdale a couple months ago, but I'm not willing to move to Florida.  
In the end, even though they did interview me and said they'd consider a 
remote office for this position, they decided they had to have someone in 
the area.

> Now, I don't mind working for a company based in London (hell, I used to
> work for one based in some place called "Indianapolis" or something).
> But I *do not* want to have to travel to London more than once a month.

So have you looked at jobs with companies based in London?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2012 10:19 AM, scott wrote:
>
>> Also, like I said, at the point where you apply, you usually have /no
>> idea/ who the company is. You just know who the recruitment agency is.
>> It's kind of hard to research a company when you don't know who they are.
>
> You call the recruitment agency and ask then.

But they won't tell you in case you go direct or mention it to another 
agency. And that's the truth.
Occasionally I will be told who the client is but that is because either 
I've made a good guess or I've known the recruiter for years.
The thing is that you don't want to be put in for the same job by two 
different agencies. That way the client will discount both applications.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>> Also, like I said, at the point where you apply, you usually have /no
>>> idea/ who the company is. You just know who the recruitment agency is.
>>> It's kind of hard to research a company when you don't know who they
>>> are.
>>
>> You call the recruitment agency and ask then.
>
> But they won't tell you in case you go direct or mention it to another
> agency. And that's the truth.

Quite.

> The thing is that you don't want to be put in for the same job by two
> different agencies. That way the client will discount both applications.

Our HR person concurs. (And she claims to have worked in hiring, so...)

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2012 9:25 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> The thing is that you don't want to be put in for the same job by two
>> different agencies. That way the client will discount both applications.
>
> Our HR person concurs. (And she claims to have worked in hiring, so...)

I have personal experience of that. So I am very careful.
If I have applied for a job and a similar one comes up. I insist that 
the agency tells me who the client is before they put me in for it.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>> How many CVs have you sent out?
>>
>> I've only really started properly keeping track the last week or so. But
>> a rough count shows that in the last few weeks, I've sent out roughly
>> 50+ job applications.
>
> Have you kept track of who you've sent the CVs to?  You wouldn't want to
> send one twice for the same posting....

Well, the main site I'm applying through keeps track of these things. 
However, that doesn't save you if two agencies have listed the same job. 
But usually you start reading the text, and realise it sounds awful 
familiar...

This last week, I've been actually writing down the jobs. Which is just 
as well, because I want to another site [as I was ordered to], and all 
the jobs were duplicates of ones I'd already applied to.

> One of the things that I've learned is
> without the delimiter of a workday, it's easy to get distracted.

Well, that's true enough. It's like, I have so much time to do 
everything, I tend to end up deciding to do *everything* "later"... 
which doesn't actually work.

But I'm working on that, and I feel like I'm getting a reasonable amount 
of stuff done.

> So?  When I was laid off, I kept in touch with sales people and others
> who were laid off when I was.  It's not like the labs they're looking at
> going to work for have no IT infrastructure and no staff needs in that
> area.  It's not like they don't know people who might know something.

OK, but the labs they're applying to are scattered all over the country. 
I'm looking for jobs near where I live.

>> Basically, I don't know anybody in computing. With the exception of
>> Jayne - who keeps telling me that I should come work for Network Rail.
>> Which sounds like a great idea, except that they don't have any
>> computer-related jobs going.
>
> Not publicly posted.  Maybe she knows something internal or can find out
> something that hasn't been posted yet.  You don't know if you don't ask.

Well, when I asked, she claimed that "all our IT stuff is outsourced". 
(Which begs the question "so what do YOU do there then??") To me, this 
sounds not so much like a hot tip for where to work, but a sure-fire 
place to not waste your time with...

>> See, that's the thing - knowing somebody doesn't actually get you hired.
>
> Sorry, that's bullshit.

Perhaps you missed it. I know people - and yet, I'm not getting hired.

So perhaps you could /explain/ exactly how I can turn the fact that I 
know people into offers of employment. :-P

> Again, that's total bullshit not based on how the real world works.
> *Most* of the people I know who both work in the job search business (and
> yes, that's actually a business) report time and time again that insider
> contacts are the single most important thing to have in a job search next
> to the skills necessary to do the job.

Well... I don't know what else to say to that. As best as I can tell, 
knowing people is NO HELP whatsoever. Now you can stand there and tell 
me that actually it is, but this is totally at variance with my 
experience, to the point where I find it very hard to believe.

> Personal recommendations from current employees go a LONG way.

And yet, every time I ask somebody who works for somebody, they're 
always like "Oh, I'm sorry, I can't help you with that. It's not my 
department. I'm not even sure who deals with hiring. Maybe you could 
check our website?"

To me, this doesn't seem like insider knowledge being this "killer 
advantage" that everybody keeps talking about. I mean, sure, if your mum 
happens to know the CEO on a first-name basis or something...

> You prepared documentation that successfully met the auditing
> requirements.  Whether you believe it or not, that actually does count
> for something.  Get hold of one of the auditors who went over your
> documentation and see if they know of anyone who's looking for someone
> with your skills.  The worst that happens is that they don't.  The best
> is that maybe you get a lead and a recommendation from an auditor who was
> impressed by what you did.
>
> Which would count a lot as recommendations go.  Hiring someone who you
> know is capable of writing documentation to satisfy an audit = quite
> valuable to the right company.

I suppose the next problem is that I don't remember who any of these 
auditors were, who they worked for or how to contact them. And that a 
tiny few of them might remember my employer, but none of them will 
remember me personally. You know, just saying...

[Actually, that's not completely true. I think the team from the MHRA 
was usually the same bunch of people every 3 years, and plausibly I 
could discover who they were... Doesn't change the fact that the MHRA 
audit thousands of labs per year though.]

>>> ISTR you ruled out going to Oxford fairly quickly.
>>
>> I tried to travel there. It was hell. Just for one day, and it was hell.
>> I don't want that every day.
>
> You had one bad experience - your first, it sounded like - and decided
> that maybe familiarity wouldn't actually help, so you gave up.

It doesn't look very far on the map. But there's no particularly direct 
route in that direction, so it's really awkward to get there. And the 
road system in Oxford itself is a nightmare - which is irrelevant, 
because there's nowhere to park even if you could drive in there. 
Instead I'd have to take the bicycle to the office, because the ****ing 
public transport system doesn't actually work...

>> The Oxford company TOLD ME that I would have to come there every day.
>> That's not an assumption, that's fact.
>
> Sure, but that's not the only company in Oxford.  Don't miss the point
> that you've ruled out Oxford based on one days' experience when you had
> no prior knowledge of how to find your way around.

2 days. I drove over there to scope it out, and then I went back there 
again for the actual interview. Both times it was a total PITA.

>> Now, I don't mind working for a company based in London (hell, I used to
>> work for one based in some place called "Indianapolis" or something).
>> But I *do not* want to have to travel to London more than once a month.
>
> So have you looked at jobs with companies based in London?

I've looked at jobs listed as being based within a reasonable distance 
of where I live. I didn't bother checking whether any of the companies 
involved [where you can even tell what company it is] are based in London.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2012 09:39 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/09/2012 9:25 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> The thing is that you don't want to be put in for the same job by two
>>> different agencies. That way the client will discount both applications.
>>
>> Our HR person concurs. (And she claims to have worked in hiring, so...)
>
> I have personal experience of that. So I am very careful.
> If I have applied for a job and a similar one comes up. I insist that
> the agency tells me who the client is before they put me in for it.

Really, the HR person's input is why I'm scaling back on applications. 
She says that if one agency gets a big pile of applications from the 
same person, all for totally different jobs, it tends to make them 
reconsider whether this person is worth dealing with.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2012 9:53 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Really, the HR person's input is why I'm scaling back on applications.
> She says that if one agency gets a big pile of applications from the
> same person, all for totally different jobs, it tends to make them
> reconsider whether this person is worth dealing with.

I can believe that, each agency will have only one data base entry for 
you and I lay odds that it is a simple one. You can be either IT support 
or a programmer but not both.
Having said that although I have been working in SAP for almost 20 years 
I still get emails for electronic engineering, process control and SCADA 
techs. I also get emails about jobs for sap modules where I’ve mentioned 
integration with. Just because they do a keyword search on their db. Lazy!
It is not a sinecure looking for a job but five to eight hours a day 
five days a week is either a lie to the job centre or the way to madness 
and depression. Don’t (IMO) feel guilty about killing a few hours doing 
what you like. And Jim has a good point about getting out and about, 
although not to the job centre, because it staves off depression.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:51:47 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> Have you kept track of who you've sent the CVs to?  You wouldn't want
>> to send one twice for the same posting....
> 
> Well, the main site I'm applying through keeps track of these things.
> However, that doesn't save you if two agencies have listed the same job.
> But usually you start reading the text, and realise it sounds awful
> familiar...

That makes sense.  Most companies don't write more than one job 
description per position. :)

>> One of the things that I've learned is without the delimiter of a
>> workday, it's easy to get distracted.
> 
> Well, that's true enough. It's like, I have so much time to do
> everything, I tend to end up deciding to do *everything* "later"...
> which doesn't actually work.

Right, that's one of the reasons having the delimiter is valuable, and 
having a place to go to (whether it be the job centre, the local library, 
or whatever) is really helpful.

Back in the mid 90's when I was let go from my first job in Utah, I never 
left the house - and I'm sure that contributed to it taking longer for me 
to find something.  Job market was good then so it only took about 6 
months, but I spent a lot of time being depressed and feeling out of 
control.

I might've felt more in control if I'd taken the time to leave the house 
and go someplace to work on finding work.

> But I'm working on that, and I feel like I'm getting a reasonable amount
> of stuff done.

That's good. :)

>> So?  When I was laid off, I kept in touch with sales people and others
>> who were laid off when I was.  It's not like the labs they're looking
>> at going to work for have no IT infrastructure and no staff needs in
>> that area.  It's not like they don't know people who might know
>> something.
> 
> OK, but the labs they're applying to are scattered all over the country.
> I'm looking for jobs near where I live.

So tell them that you have a desire to stay where you are - though 
personally, I think you should cast a larger net.  I also understand not 
wanting to deal with the hassle of moving until such time as it's 
convenient.  But you never know if that lab in Edinburgh has local 
employees where you are unless you look into it.

>> Not publicly posted.  Maybe she knows something internal or can find
>> out something that hasn't been posted yet.  You don't know if you don't
>> ask.
> 
> Well, when I asked, she claimed that "all our IT stuff is outsourced".
> (Which begs the question "so what do YOU do there then??") To me, this
> sounds not so much like a hot tip for where to work, but a sure-fire
> place to not waste your time with...

Maybe that have technical non-IT jobs that would be a good (or even 
better) fit for you.  You never know until you ask.

>>> See, that's the thing - knowing somebody doesn't actually get you
>>> hired.
>>
>> Sorry, that's bullshit.
> 
> Perhaps you missed it. I know people - and yet, I'm not getting hired.

Guess what?  I know people, and I've not been hired yet either beyond 
doing contract work.

But look at the difference between what I said and what you said.  I said 
"knowing people helps" and provided examples of times when it's worked 
for me or for other people.  It *does* work.  That it hasn't yet worked 
for you (having been out of work for all of 19 days) doesn't mean it's 
not worthwhile.  It does work, so rather than doing your "the world 
according to Andrew" approach to whether things work or not, trust those 
of us who have the experience and who have actually done this.  You keep 
insisting things that people actually do don't generally work because 
you've not experienced them working.

You need to stop doing that.  We're trying to *help*, you know.  But we 
can only lead you to the water - you have to actually drink it.

> 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.  But 
if someone you know who works for a company that has your dream job 
doesn't know (a) that you're looking and (b) that the job in question is 
actually your dream job, then they're really not going to tell you or 
even think of you, are they?

>> Again, that's total bullshit not based on how the real world works.
>> *Most* of the people I know who both work in the job search business
>> (and yes, that's actually a business) report time and time again that
>> insider contacts are the single most important thing to have in a job
>> search next to the skills necessary to do the job.
> 
> Well... I don't know what else to say to that. As best as I can tell,
> knowing people is NO HELP whatsoever. Now you can stand there and tell
> me that actually it is, but this is totally at variance with my
> experience, to the point where I find it very hard to believe.

Again, your experience nonwithstanding, this is what actual people who 
work for recruiting companies and who help people find work have said.  
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.

>> Personal recommendations from current employees go a LONG way.
> 
> And yet, every time I ask somebody who works for somebody, they're
> always like "Oh, I'm sorry, I can't help you with that. It's not my
> department. I'm not even sure who deals with hiring. Maybe you could
> check our website?"

Of course there will be some who do that.  But at the same time, if they 
know what you're looking for, if something does come up that they hear 
about, they'll think of you.

> To me, this doesn't seem like insider knowledge being this "killer
> advantage" that everybody keeps talking about. I mean, sure, if your mum
> happens to know the CEO on a first-name basis or something...

*sigh* I keep forgetting that "Andy reality" is all you know, and your 
experience is *very* limited.

Seriously, I'm not trying to waste your time with shit that doesn't 
work.  I'm trying to tell you these are the things that professionals who 
help people find work and many people I know who have found work use AND 
IT WORKS.  It sometimes takes time, and usually takes patience, but it 
DOES pay off.  Nobody said it would be *easy*.

>> You prepared documentation that successfully met the auditing
>> requirements.  Whether you believe it or not, that actually does count
>> for something.  Get hold of one of the auditors who went over your
>> documentation and see if they know of anyone who's looking for someone
>> with your skills.  The worst that happens is that they don't.  The best
>> is that maybe you get a lead and a recommendation from an auditor who
>> was impressed by what you did.
>>
>> Which would count a lot as recommendations go.  Hiring someone who you
>> know is capable of writing documentation to satisfy an audit = quite
>> valuable to the right company.
> 
> I suppose the next problem is that I don't remember who any of these
> auditors were, who they worked for or how to contact them. And that a
> tiny few of them might remember my employer, but none of them will
> remember me personally. You know, just saying...

Your own self-perceptions aside, I'm sure that, assuming your doc writing 
was as good as some of the things you've written here or on your blog, 
they would remember you.

> [Actually, that's not completely true. I think the team from the MHRA
> was usually the same bunch of people every 3 years, and plausibly I
> could discover who they were... Doesn't change the fact that the MHRA
> audit thousands of labs per year though.]

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.  I had auditors from Deloitte come in to a place I was working 
to do a licensing audit, and they remarked that I always made sure they 
could reach me and had prepared everything they asked for - and that that 
was incredibly rare - usually the audits dragged on for days and days 
because they couldn't find what they needed and couldn't talk to the 
people they needed to talk to.

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.

>>>> ISTR you ruled out going to Oxford fairly quickly.
>>>
>>> I tried to travel there. It was hell. Just for one day, and it was
>>> hell.
>>> I don't want that every day.
>>
>> You had one bad experience - your first, it sounded like - and decided
>> that maybe familiarity wouldn't actually help, so you gave up.
> 
> It doesn't look very far on the map. But there's no particularly direct
> route in that direction, so it's really awkward to get there. And the
> road system in Oxford itself is a nightmare - which is irrelevant,
> because there's nowhere to park even if you could drive in there.
> Instead I'd have to take the bicycle to the office, because the ****ing
> public transport system doesn't actually work...

I repeat - ONE EXPERIENCE.  If it were a daily trip, I'm sure you'd find 
ways to optimize the travel experience.

>>> The Oxford company TOLD ME that I would have to come there every day.
>>> That's not an assumption, that's fact.
>>
>> Sure, but that's not the only company in Oxford.  Don't miss the point
>> that you've ruled out Oxford based on one days' experience when you had
>> no prior knowledge of how to find your way around.
> 
> 2 days. I drove over there to scope it out, and then I went back there
> again for the actual interview. Both times it was a total PITA.

That's still not the same as making the trip regularly.  You're missing 
the point.

>>> Now, I don't mind working for a company based in London (hell, I used
>>> to work for one based in some place called "Indianapolis" or
>>> something). But I *do not* want to have to travel to London more than
>>> once a month.
>>
>> So have you looked at jobs with companies based in London?
> 
> I've looked at jobs listed as being based within a reasonable distance
> of where I live. I didn't bother checking whether any of the companies
> involved [where you can even tell what company it is] are based in
> London.

You might try casting a wider net.  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.

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).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> It is not a sinecure looking for a job but five to eight hours a day
> five days a week is either a lie to the job centre or the way to madness
> and depression. Don’t (IMO) feel guilty about killing a few hours doing
> what you like. And Jim has a good point about getting out and about,
> although not to the job centre, because it staves off depression.

I recently bought a bike - just to see if I can still ride one - and 
I've been cycling around the place quite a bit lately. Although in the 
last few days, the weather seems to have turned very cold and grey...

Post a reply to this message

>> You call the recruitment agency and ask then.
>
> But they won't tell you in case you go direct or mention it to another
> agency. And that's the truth.

Maybe it's different for engineering jobs then, but every time I've 
spoken to a recruitment agency about a job they've told me not just the 
company name but a lot of detail about the company background and the 
job. I suspect the recruitment agency and the employer have a contract 
that states the agency will still get paid if they find you, no matter 
how you finally apply for the job. Otherwise you could just say no at 
the interview, and then call back the company the next day direct and 
say you want the job.

It also seems ridiculous to apply for a job with a company when you 
don't even know the company name (and thus presumably not know exactly 
where it is located, whether they are about to go bankrupt, or have a 
bad reputation, or even it might the same company you are working for 
already - which would be embarrassing).

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2012 08:50 AM, scott wrote:
> Maybe it's different for engineering jobs then, but every time I've
> spoken to a recruitment agency about a job they've told me not just the
> company name but a lot of detail about the company background and the
> job.

> It also seems ridiculous to apply for a job with a company when you
> don't even know the company name

Let us look at a typical example of a job advert:



Java Developer

Location:     Milton Keynes
Distance:     Within 7.5 miles
Salary:       From £50,000 to £60,000 per annum
Date posted:  03/09/2012 16:40
Job type:     Permanent
Company:      Ibell Cowlin Ltd
Contact:      Robin White
Ref:          Totaljobs/RW-1208-16
Job ID:       54341929

Java Developer – AJAX/XHTML/Javascript – An incredible opportunity has 
arisen for a skilled Java developer to work for a well established 
software house in Milton Keynes. The company truly is a world leader in 
its field and has an exceptional amount of work to undertake – your job 
will be to come on board and make your home within the development team, 
developing new applications and upgrading the company’s current products.

The ideal Java developer will be degree educated (or with equivalent 
experience) with several years working in a commercial environment and 
be happy to integrate into a small team. You will need to have 
exceptional AJAX, XHTML and Javascript and be very well presented as 
there will regular exposure to clients as well as some, infrequent, 
international travel.

The successful Java developer will be offered a market-beating salary 
together with a generous holiday allowance and benefits package. This 
would suit applicants based in Bedford, Luton, Hemel Hempstead, Watford, 
Northampton and Kettering or those who would be prepared to relocate.



So, who is the company then? Because from what I can see, all it says is 
"truly a world leader in its field". It doesn't even really say what 
it's field *is*, just that it's a "software house".

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2012 8:50 AM, scott wrote:
>>> You call the recruitment agency and ask then.
>>
>> But they won't tell you in case you go direct or mention it to another
>> agency. And that's the truth.
>
> Maybe it's different for engineering jobs then, but every time I've
> spoken to a recruitment agency about a job they've told me not just the
> company name but a lot of detail about the company background and the
> job. I suspect the recruitment agency and the employer have a contract
> that states the agency will still get paid if they find you, no matter
> how you finally apply for the job. Otherwise you could just say no at
> the interview, and then call back the company the next day direct and
> say you want the job.
>

I think that it is different for the contract market. There can be 
several agencies looking for candidates for the one job and they do not 
want the candidates applying direct or telling other agencies the 
company has a position. It seems to be a very cut throat business.

> It also seems ridiculous to apply for a job with a company when you
> don't even know the company name (and thus presumably not know exactly
> where it is located, whether they are about to go bankrupt, or have a
> bad reputation,

All true.

> or even it might the same company you are working for
> already - which would be embarrassing).
>

But enlightening. ;-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> So, who is the company then? Because from what I can see, all it says is
> "truly a world leader in its field". It doesn't even really say what
> it's field *is*, just that it's a "software house".

It certainly seems different for IT/software jobs than for engineering 
then, as I said the recruitment agency always told me the name of the 
company (and lots of useful pointers about how to update my CV for that 
particular role) before actually submitting my application.

Post a reply to this message

>> Well, the main site I'm applying through keeps track of these things.
>> However, that doesn't save you if two agencies have listed the same job.
>> But usually you start reading the text, and realise it sounds awful
>> familiar...
>
> 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?

>> Well, when I asked, she claimed that "all our IT stuff is outsourced".
>> (Which begs the question "so what do YOU do there then??") To me, this
>> sounds not so much like a hot tip for where to work, but a sure-fire
>> place to not waste your time with...
>
> 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.

> It does work, so rather than doing your "the world
> according to Andrew" approach to whether things work or not, trust those
> of us who have the experience and who have actually done this.

Well, I don't know. If you said "there are camels in Mongolia", I'd 
believe you. If you said "there /aren't/ any camels in Mongolia", I'd 
believe you. Because I have no frigging idea where Mongolia *is*, and 
certainly no idea what the local flora and fauna is like.

But when somebody tells me "wine tastes sweet", when it clearly and 
obviously does not, and it's trivially easy to verify over and over 
again that it /actually/ tastes sharp, bitter and corrosive, I have a 
hard time believing all the people who "know better". I mean, I guess 
there must be /some/ reason why people drink this horrid stuff, but I 
have no idea what it is. (The emperor's new suit, perhaps?)

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...)

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?

Perhaps if I was the kind of well-connected guy who knows people in 
positions of power on a first-name basis, getting hired might be 
significantly easier. But I don't know anybody like that. I don't know 
of anybody who knows anybody like that. And I doubt I ever will.

>> 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?

> But
> if someone you know who works for a company that has your dream job
> doesn't know (a) that you're looking and (b) that the job in question is
> actually your dream job, then they're really not going to tell you or
> even think of you, are they?

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.

> 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?

>> [Actually, that's not completely true. I think the team from the MHRA
>> was usually the same bunch of people every 3 years, and plausibly I
>> could discover who they were... Doesn't change the fact that the MHRA
>> audit thousands of labs per year though.]
>
> 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.]

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...

> 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...

>> It doesn't look very far on the map. But there's no particularly direct
>> route in that direction, so it's really awkward to get there. And the
>> road system in Oxford itself is a nightmare - which is irrelevant,
>> because there's nowhere to park even if you could drive in there.
>> Instead I'd have to take the bicycle to the office, because the ****ing
>> public transport system doesn't actually work...
>
> I repeat - ONE EXPERIENCE.  If it were a daily trip, I'm sure you'd find
> ways to optimize the travel experience.

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.

> You might try casting a wider net.

Maybe in 9 months' time when I still don't have a job, I'll consider it. 
Currently I'm only considering jobs that I'd actually want to have. 
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?

> 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.

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?

> 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.

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?

Post a reply to this message

> But when somebody tells me "wine tastes sweet", when it clearly and
> obviously does not, and it's trivially easy to verify over and over
> again that it /actually/ tastes sharp, bitter and corrosive,

Did you ever stop and think that not all wines are the same? Some are 
sweeter than others. A wine described as sweet is obviously not going to 
taste like a bag of sugar - what did you expect?

> Likewise, when somebody says that knowing people instantly makes every
> job search trivial...

Nobody said that, it's more likely to make is easier than if you don't 
know anyone.

> 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?

But those people *might* be able to put you in touch with the right 
person who does know about computery stuff. That's how networking works.

> Perhaps if I was the kind of well-connected guy who knows people in
> positions of power on a first-name basis, getting hired might be
> significantly easier. But I don't know anybody like that. I don't know
> of anybody who knows anybody like that. And I doubt I ever will.

You don't need to know anyone in a position of power, you just need to 
know other people who might have heard of a computery type job going. 
The more people you talk to obviously the more chance of finding out 
about a job that would be suitable.

> 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.]

Why are you limiting yourself to companies nearby?

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2012 12:40 PM, scott wrote:
>> But when somebody tells me "wine tastes sweet", when it clearly and
>> obviously does not, and it's trivially easy to verify over and over
>> again that it /actually/ tastes sharp, bitter and corrosive,
>
> Did you ever stop and think that not all wines are the same?

Did you ever stop to think that I've tasted dozens of different wines 
over the course of my life? Sure, they didn't all taste the same. But 
I've yet to find a single one which could be described as "sweet". And 
when people sing lyrics like "kissing sweeter than wine", it makes it 
sound like sweetness is a very common property of many wines. This 
certainly does not appear to be the case at all.

> But those people *might* be able to put you in touch with the right
> person who does know about computery stuff. That's how networking works.

In my limited experience, this has not been the case. Most employees 
seem to have absolutely no idea whether their employer is hiring or not. 
Not even for the job that *they* do, never mind for an unrelated part of 
the operation.

> You don't need to know anyone in a position of power, you just need to
> know other people who might have heard of a computery type job going.
> The more people you talk to obviously the more chance of finding out
> about a job that would be suitable.

Well, I guess that's true enough. But these jobs are going to show up on 
a jobs site eventually /anyway/. Just "knowing" that they exist doesn't 
really help get you hired. (And besides, surely you'd have to speak to a 
hell of a lot of people on an extremely regular basis to hear about this 
stuff...)

>> 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.]
>
> Why are you limiting yourself to companies nearby?

Because I don't want to have to travel too far to get to work?

It's one of the many things I disliked about my old job. Now, obviously, 
it may turn out that I still end up needing to drive to Banbury or 
something. But at least that's a bit nearer than Coventry.

In particular, given the number of jobs I've seen advertised as being 
*in* Milton Keynes, it doesn't seem too outrageous to imagine that I 
might be able to get one of them. This is new; in the past, I've never 
been able to find anything that near. But now I've found some better 
sites to look on, I'm finding quite a lot of very local jobs. Why look 
further away when there's this much stuff right here?

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2012 1:40 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>
> Did you ever stop to think that I've tasted dozens of different wines
> over the course of my life? Sure, they didn't all taste the same. But
> I've yet to find a single one which could be described as "sweet". And
> when people sing lyrics like "kissing sweeter than wine", it makes it
> sound like sweetness is a very common property of many wines. This
> certainly does not appear to be the case at all.
>

Have you ever tried a dessert wine?

>> Why are you limiting yourself to companies nearby?
>
> Because I don't want to have to travel too far to get to work?
>

That will get you little sympathy especially from employers.

> It's one of the many things I disliked about my old job. Now, obviously,
> it may turn out that I still end up needing to drive to Banbury or
> something. But at least that's a bit nearer than Coventry.
>
> In particular, given the number of jobs I've seen advertised as being
> *in* Milton Keynes, it doesn't seem too outrageous to imagine that I
> might be able to get one of them. This is new; in the past, I've never
> been able to find anything that near. But now I've found some better
> sites to look on, I'm finding quite a lot of very local jobs. Why look
> further away when there's this much stuff right here?

Let us know how you get on.
-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> Have you ever tried a dessert wine?

I have no idea. All I know is that I've tasted red wines, white wines, 
and wines who's actual physical colour varies over quite a few hues. 
They don't all taste the same, for sure, but none of them taste "sweet".

> That will get you little sympathy especially from employers.

I also want to earn as much money as possible, whereas employers want to 
pay me as little money as possible. So what else is new? :-P

> Let us know how you get on.

Well, if I ever do get hired, I'm sure you will all be hearing about 
it... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> Did you ever stop to think that I've tasted dozens of different wines
> over the course of my life? Sure, they didn't all taste the same. But
> I've yet to find a single one which could be described as "sweet".

Funny, in most places you can buy wine there will be a whole section 
labelled "sweet", or at least a lot of options of sweet wines. Assuming 
you've tried some of them, then either you have your definition of 
"sweet" wrong, or everyone else does.

>> But those people *might* be able to put you in touch with the right
>> person who does know about computery stuff. That's how networking works.
>
> In my limited experience, this has not been the case.

You need more experience then, it's not like you should expect every 1 
in 3 people to know about a job you might be interested in.

> Well, I guess that's true enough. But these jobs are going to show up on
> a jobs site eventually /anyway/.

Not if they can hire someone before needing to advertise.

>> Why are you limiting yourself to companies nearby?
>
> Because I don't want to have to travel too far to get to work?

You didn't consider finding a job first, and then accommodation nearby, 
rather than the other way around?

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2012 03:07 PM, scott wrote:
>> Did you ever stop to think that I've tasted dozens of different wines
>> over the course of my life? Sure, they didn't all taste the same. But
>> I've yet to find a single one which could be described as "sweet".
>
> Funny, in most places you can buy wine there will be a whole section
> labelled "sweet"

I would imagine so.

> Assuming you've tried some of them

I imagine I have, but I can't be completely certain of this.

> then either you have your definition of "sweet" wrong, or everyone else does.

Unless a "sweet" wine simply means one that is sweetER than the others?

(After all, nobody actually has "white" skin, they just have skin that 
is whitER than other people.)

>> In my limited experience, this has not been the case.
>
> You need more experience then, it's not like you should expect every 1
> in 3 people to know about a job you might be interested in.

Well, I don't exactly know thousands of millions of people. And given my 
lack of social skills, I doubt I ever will.

>> Well, I guess that's true enough. But these jobs are going to show up on
>> a jobs site eventually /anyway/.
>
> Not if they can hire someone before needing to advertise.

Well, if they already know who they want for the job, then I didn't 
stand a chance in the first place. :-P

> You didn't consider finding a job first, and then accommodation nearby,
> rather than the other way around?

No. Because living in the best city in the country is more important to 
me than which soul-crushing, monotonous waste of my life I get paid for. :-P

Life is all about priorities, after all...

Post a reply to this message

> Unless a "sweet" wine simply means one that is sweetER than the others?

Now that would just be silly to call a wine that is sweeter than others 
a "sweet wine". I wonder what they'll come up with next, "fast" cars for 
cars than are simply just faster than others, but are nothing like fast 
jets or spaceships.

> Well, if they already know who they want for the job, then I didn't
> stand a chance in the first place. :-P

The whole point is that you make it so you are the one they know they 
want for the job, then nobody else stands a chance :-)

> No. Because living in the best city in the country is more important to
> me than which soul-crushing, monotonous waste of my life I get paid for.
> :-P
>
> Life is all about priorities, after all...

What if there was a job that you actually enjoyed that required you to 
move outside of roundabout-city?

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2012 03:48 PM, scott wrote:
>> Unless a "sweet" wine simply means one that is sweetER than the others?
>
> Now that would just be silly to call a wine that is sweeter than others
> a "sweet wine". I wonder what they'll come up with next, "fast" cars for
> cars than are simply just faster than others, but are nothing like fast
> jets or spaceships.

...

>> Well, if they already know who they want for the job, then I didn't
>> stand a chance in the first place. :-P
>
> The whole point is that you make it so you are the one they know they
> want for the job, then nobody else stands a chance :-)

AFAIK, this is impossible.

>> No. Because living in the best city in the country is more important to
>> me than which soul-crushing, monotonous waste of my life I get paid for.
>> :-P
>>
>> Life is all about priorities, after all...
>
> What if there was a job that you actually enjoyed that required you to
> move outside of roundabout-city?

What's the point of having a job you actually enjoy if you have to be 
miserable the rest of the time?

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2012 4:49 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> What's the point of having a job you actually enjoy if you have to be
> miserable the rest of the time?

Move away from your mother, pay the rent, have somewhere you can take 
your next girl friend to, be as one with everyone else.
If you were promised an easy life then when you die kick St Peter or 
whoever in the goolies. He/she/it lied.
We all have to do things that we don't particularly like to survive.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 21/09/2012 12:40 PM, scott wrote:
> >> But when somebody tells me "wine tastes sweet", when it clearly and
> >> obviously does not, and it's trivially easy to verify over and over
> >> again that it /actually/ tastes sharp, bitter and corrosive,
> >
> > Did you ever stop and think that not all wines are the same?
>
> Did you ever stop to think that I've tasted dozens of different wines
> over the course of my life? Sure, they didn't all taste the same. But
> I've yet to find a single one which could be described as "sweet". And
> when people sing lyrics like "kissing sweeter than wine", it makes it
> sound like sweetness is a very common property of many wines. This
> certainly does not appear to be the case at all.
>
It is entirely possible you are a "supertaster".

"In the case of the supertaster, it is difficult to imagine one being an
excellent wine connoisseur because most supertasters find red wine bitter and
thus, unenjoyable."
http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=282

This raises the rather interesting possibility that even if you and I (for
example) experience exactly the same thing, we may be completely at odds in our
descriptions of it. And yet, our opposing descriptions may both be entirely
correct, because our /perceptions/ are objectively different.

What do you think of coffee?

P.S. I'm entirely with you on not accepting (unless or until your survival
requires it) the false dichotomy of choosing between living in a place that
sucks or working at a place that sucks.

Post a reply to this message

On 22/09/2012 02:25 AM, waggy wrote:
> It is entirely possible you are a "supertaster".

I once thought that. (Especially after hearing "John Lee Supertaster" by 
They Might Be Giants.) And then my dad pointed out that if I /was/ a 
supertaster, I couldn't possibly eat raw table sugar or drink neat 
vinegar - both things which I do from time to time.

> What do you think of coffee?

That it tastes diabolically awful?

> P.S. I'm entirely with you on not accepting (unless or until your survival
> requires it) the false dichotomy of choosing between living in a place that
> sucks or working at a place that sucks.

Indeed.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/20/2012 10:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Once I know what's happening after this gig, I'll decide whether I'm
> setting up a sole proprietorship or something similar myself.

Unless you've set something up already, you're already a sole proprietor. 
Your choice is sole proprietor, partnership, or corporation.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."

Post a reply to this message

On 9/21/2012 5:40, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Did you ever stop to think that I've tasted dozens of different wines over
> the course of my life?

Wow! Dozens!?  ;-)

> find a single one which could be described as "sweet".

Muscato d'Oro.  Sauternes. Even Port.

 > And when people sing
> lyrics like "kissing sweeter than wine", it makes it sound like sweetness is
> a very common property of many wines.

That's a different kind of sweetness.

>> But those people *might* be able to put you in touch with the right
>> person who does know about computery stuff. That's how networking works.
>
> In my limited experience, this has not been the case.

So, because you're ignorant, you're going to ignore the advice of those who 
aren't? Is that what you're saying?

 > Most employees seem to
> have absolutely no idea whether their employer is hiring or not. Not even
> for the job that *they* do, never mind for an unrelated part of the operation.

That's not the point. Every employer is hiring if the right person comes along.

>> You don't need to know anyone in a position of power, you just need to
>> know other people who might have heard of a computery type job going.
>> The more people you talk to obviously the more chance of finding out
>> about a job that would be suitable.
>
> Well, I guess that's true enough. But these jobs are going to show up on a
> jobs site eventually /anyway/. Just "knowing" that they exist doesn't really
> help get you hired.

Yes. Yes it does. Just knowing they exist can get you considered before 
every hopeful with an internet connection sends in a resume.

> Because I don't want to have to travel too far to get to work?

So you move. Hell, I worked for a guy who had moved 43 times in his life, 
because he liked walking to work. We're sitting in the bar, he gets a phone 
call, and says "Great. The movers are done and I'm moved in." He didn't even 
bother showing up for the moving process any more. He just told the movers 
where he lived and where he moved to.

> But now I've found some better sites to look on,

Did you check Craigslist? Or did you just dismiss it because you'd actually 
have to type the name into the address bar to get there?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."

Post a reply to this message

On 9/20/2012 0:37, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Currently I'm going with the latter approach.

But tailor your cover letter, especially if you're applying directly to the 
company. Point out each correspondence between your CV and their job 
advertisement.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."

Post a reply to this message

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

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:45:31 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>> find a single one which could be described as "sweet".
> 
> Muscato d'Oro.  Sauternes. Even Port.

Indeed, port or most dessert wines come to mind as sweet wines.  Of 
course it also helps to know that in wine tasting "sweet" generally means 
lower alcohol content as well - the sugars aren't converted to alcohol, 
so they can also tend to be a little more syrupy as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:48:53 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 9/20/2012 0:37, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Currently I'm going with the latter approach.
> 
> But tailor your cover letter, especially if you're applying directly to
> the company. Point out each correspondence between your CV and their job
> advertisement.

^This

It's especially helpful if you can use phrases or words from the job 
posting in the cover letter.  That helps with keyword-based electronic 
systems (same as with the resume/CV as well).

It'd been suggested as an interesting experiment (but not in any serious 
way) that one thing that might "help" (until it got caught, anyways) 
would be to include in the CV/cover letter a copy of the actual job 
posting in small white-on-white text.  Of course, that'd trick the 
system, but when a human looked at it, they might well notice it and 
disqualify you for trying to "cheat".  Probably why nobody's ever owned 
up to using that idea. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:36:48 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 9/20/2012 10:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Once I know what's happening after this gig, I'll decide whether I'm
>> setting up a sole proprietorship or something similar myself.
> 
> Unless you've set something up already, you're already a sole
> proprietor.
> Your choice is sole proprietor, partnership, or corporation.

I'm thinking in terms of incorporation, though - right now I'm paid 
direct by my intermediary, but for tax reasons, there might be a benefit 
to having a corporate entity of some sort be paid and then taking a 
salary out of that, along with introducing benefits, such as pre-tax 
(income tax, of course) health insurance payments.

But adding overhead of payroll taxes and the like might make it more 
involved.  We've just sent in our first estimated income tax, though, 
which we're supposed to do quarterly if the income's over a certain 
amount (it hasn't been to this point).

LLC is really popular here in Utah (and probably elsewhere as well).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2012 11:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Of
> course it also helps to know that in wine tasting "sweet" generally means
> lower alcohol content as well - the sugars aren't converted to alcohol,

I thought that it was the other way around. Sweet wine has higher 
alcohol content because the yeast is killed off when the alcohol reaches 
a certain level, leaving some sugar unfermented.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:02:05 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 24/09/2012 11:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Of course it also helps to know that in wine tasting "sweet" generally
>> means lower alcohol content as well - the sugars aren't converted to
>> alcohol,
> 
> I thought that it was the other way around. Sweet wine has higher
> alcohol content because the yeast is killed off when the alcohol reaches
> a certain level, leaving some sugar unfermented.

Hmmm, now I think of it, I might well have had it backwards.  Had a 
raspberry dessert wine last night, 14% alcohol content, and it was fairly 
sweet.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-09-25 01:02, Stephen a écrit :
> On 24/09/2012 11:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Of
>> course it also helps to know that in wine tasting "sweet" generally means
>> lower alcohol content as well - the sugars aren't converted to alcohol,
>
> I thought that it was the other way around. Sweet wine has higher
> alcohol content because the yeast is killed off when the alcohol reaches
> a certain level, leaving some sugar unfermented.
>

It depends.

Fortified wines (such as port and sherry) have 97% alcohol added to kill 
the yeast to (historically to allow for easier transportation back to 
England) causing some of the sugar to remain - and contributing to the 
higher alcohol contents.

Dessert wines have so much sugar in them to begin with that the yeast 
can not convert it all to alcohol, so the wine remains sweet after 
fermentation.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 26/09/2012 16:18, Francois Labreque nous fit lire :
> Le 2012-09-25 01:02, Stephen a écrit :
>> On 24/09/2012 11:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Of
>>> course it also helps to know that in wine tasting "sweet" generally
>>> means
>>> lower alcohol content as well - the sugars aren't converted to alcohol,
>>
>> I thought that it was the other way around. Sweet wine has higher
>> alcohol content because the yeast is killed off when the alcohol reaches
>> a certain level, leaving some sugar unfermented.
>>
> 
> It depends.
> 
> Fortified wines (such as port and sherry) have 97% alcohol added to kill
> the yeast to (historically to allow for easier transportation back to
> England) causing some of the sugar to remain - and contributing to the
> higher alcohol contents.

mmmh... porto got only 1:4 of 77% alcohol (brandy). (so 1/5 at the end)

sherry (Xeres) are distilled, the aims being to reduce the volume for
the transportation (from Spain to England... or is it United Kingdom ?
Scot & Ireland already had their whisk(e)y, what about Wales ? Northen
Ireland ? Common Wealth ?... I probably got many wrong!)

It seems that associating Porto & Sherry in the same sentence is like
pairing Scottish whisky and Ireland's one... single distillation or
triple distillation... hmmm holy war.

> 
> Dessert wines have so much sugar in them to begin with that the yeast
> can not convert it all to alcohol, so the wine remains sweet after
> fermentation.
> 
The basic fact: the higher the sugar, the less you *feel* the alcohol.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2012 3:18 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
> It depends.
>

It does indeed.


> Fortified wines (such as port and sherry) have 97%

That is percentage proof, I believe. Not by volume.

>
> Dessert wines have so much sugar in them to begin with that the yeast
> can not convert it all to alcohol, so the wine remains sweet after
> fermentation.

In America fortified wines were called dessert wines to make them sound 
less obviously alcoholic.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2012 6:37 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> sherry (Xeres) are distilled, the aims being to reduce the volume for
> the transportation (from Spain to England... or is it United Kingdom ?
> Scot & Ireland already had their whisk(e)y, what about Wales ? Northen
> Ireland ? Common Wealth ?... I probably got many wrong!)

It was Great Britain then the UK in 1801.
At the time we are talking about, there was only Ireland and the Old 
Bushmills Distillery claims to be the oldest licensed distillery in the 
world. Whisky was distilled in Wales too and the Welsh Whisky Company 
has not long started distilling Penderyn single malt.

Personally I prefer my whisky without, that is without an "e" and 
without water or ice, if you are buying. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-09-26 13:37, Le_Forgeron a écrit :
> Le 26/09/2012 16:18, Francois Labreque nous fit lire :
>> Le 2012-09-25 01:02, Stephen a écrit :
>>> On 24/09/2012 11:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Of
>>>> course it also helps to know that in wine tasting "sweet" generally
>>>> means
>>>> lower alcohol content as well - the sugars aren't converted to alcohol,
>>>
>>> I thought that it was the other way around. Sweet wine has higher
>>> alcohol content because the yeast is killed off when the alcohol reaches
>>> a certain level, leaving some sugar unfermented.
>>>
>>
>> It depends.
>>
>> Fortified wines (such as port and sherry) have 97% alcohol added to kill
>> the yeast to (historically to allow for easier transportation back to
>> England) causing some of the sugar to remain - and contributing to the
>> higher alcohol contents.
>
> mmmh... porto got only 1:4 of 77% alcohol (brandy). (so 1/5 at the end)
>

Didn't imply that Porto was 97% alcohol. ;)

> sherry (Xeres) are distilled, the aims being to reduce the volume for
> the transportation (from Spain to England... or is it United Kingdom ?
> Scot & Ireland already had their whisk(e)y, what about Wales ? Northen
> Ireland ? Common Wealth ?... I probably got many wrong!)
>

Sherry (or Xeres or Jerez) wine is not distilled.

> It seems that associating Porto & Sherry in the same sentence is like
> pairing Scottish whisky and Ireland's one... single distillation or
> triple distillation... hmmm holy war.
>

Same process is applied to both.  One is done with wine from the Douro 
valley in Portugal, the other is done to wine from the Jerez area in Spain.

The other difference between the two is that sherry barrels are always 
mixed with previous years, so that the bottle that you buy today 
contains a few molecules that have been sitting in a cask for as long 
that particular vineyard existed.

>>
>> Dessert wines have so much sugar in them to begin with that the yeast
>> can not convert it all to alcohol, so the wine remains sweet after
>> fermentation.
>>
> The basic fact: the higher the sugar, the less you *feel* the alcohol.
>

Yep.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-09-26 13:41, Stephen a écrit :
> On 26/09/2012 3:18 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>
>> It depends.
>>
>
> It does indeed.
>
>
>> Fortified wines (such as port and sherry) have 97%
>
> That is percentage proof, I believe. Not by volume.
>
>>
>> Dessert wines have so much sugar in them to begin with that the yeast
>> can not convert it all to alcohol, so the wine remains sweet after
>> fermentation.
>
> In America fortified wines were called dessert wines to make them sound
> less obviously alcoholic.
>
>
Right.  I was talking about ice wines, late harvest wines, etc... that 
have higher sugar contents due to the water evaporating or freezing.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message