The article doesn’t answer the question which would have been fascinating.
Article tldr; it’s happening, it started in the 80s, it persists, it’s real bad, it doesn’t do what companies think they want, oh well.
Then why? Because there’s another reason unstated here? Because it’s the lowest effort one that lets them set up a machine and claim the equation did it? Because they’re cruel and that’s the point?
If you've ever wondered why there's one weird result outside your filters at the top of your search, or why sites insist on expanding your search, let's talk about how user testing leads companies to make unfortunate decisions.
Any good alternatives? I've been using DH to self-host Wordpress (which has been a real bad time), and real simple short-lived public-facing prototypes/etc. It's always been not great, but cheap and not important, and swapping out too much of a pain. But it's time.
(And "Go host a high-volume-spike blog at ___ like a normal person, and then solve the other problem" is entirely valid and welcome)
I'm not allowed to. I've made the arguments for, and HR controls the actual job listings, and they won't put salary in the JDs. I've been trying for two years to make this happen.
Reasons I've heard -- and again, this is not me, this is what I'm told -- include
* we can't as a matter of company policy, which can't be changed
* we offer great benefits (true, they're the best I've ever had) and so it's not fair to us to post salaries, because it'll look low and we'll lose candidates
* we want to start the conversation about the company and the position, and not the money
* it lowers our ability to negotiate with candidates and thus costs the company money
I've made all the arguments you'd expect for why we should, generally, and why specifically not doing so costs us candidates, and in return I don't get an engaged debate, just select 1-2 of the above reasons and then refuse to elaborate or work to find a way to "yes"...
Which makes me suspect there's something else going on, but what? We pay significantly above-average, with good incentives, great benefits, it's not like we're a used car lot where the goal is to get someone on the phone or property to work the high-pressure magic.
But in short: for whatever reason, I can't, and I would bet other hiring managers are in the same situation. I'd love to hear an HR/legal person explain what the actual reasons companies don't allow this are.
Our Crypto product job is the pick of the litter -- https://grnh.se/c074c9663us -- support crypto across the fintech world: build platform capabilities that power crypto startups, disrupt the status quo, and transform the industry. And as part of an already-successful bank that's still relatively tiny, you have amazing benefits (100% medical! Unlimited time off and the ability to use it!) and the resources to make things happen.
Article tldr; it’s happening, it started in the 80s, it persists, it’s real bad, it doesn’t do what companies think they want, oh well.
Then why? Because there’s another reason unstated here? Because it’s the lowest effort one that lets them set up a machine and claim the equation did it? Because they’re cruel and that’s the point?
That’s what I’d love to know, and it’s not here.