Re: [IxDA] New rule for posting jobs

25 Aug 2010 - 8:08am
3 years ago
11 replies
885 reads
DrWex
2006

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Dave Malouf wrote: > But the real "strike" is posting to the list at all. We have a job board > separate from the list that for some reason no matter how many times we post > the info to the list or people complain that recruiters aren't using it a > wave of job posts still get posted to this forum. > > Since most recruiters post sporadically the damage is done & the strike > snare just too far apart to be a useful deterrent.

An interesting perspective, but can we tone down the pejorative language and broaden our models of the users of this list? I recognize that some people don't wish to receive job postings. But others do. Referring to it as "damage" is unnecessary and unhelpful.

Furthermore, applying "strikes" to people who post jobs - which is to say do a service that helps members of our community - is further disparaging and unhelpful. Although this service is not useful to you that doesn't make it automatically evil.

Best regards, --Alan

Comments

25 Aug 2010 - 10:37am
gthomas10
2010

I agree with Alan. I like getting the job notifications.

It would be nice if recruiters appended "[JOB - <location>]" or maybe "[JOB] [<title>] [<location>]". Would allow for quick deleting for those that are not interested in job opportunites.

 

25 Aug 2010 - 6:50pm
Dave Malouf
2005

The point isn't whether or not you like it. The point is that the moderators/owners of the list (AFTER years of getting complaints about job postings cluttering the list) decided a new way. If you like them, subscribe to them. you'll get a lot more than what comes here. It is just in a different address/subscription.

As to Alan's point about "pejorative", really? That sensitive? as to "damage" I think dost being a little literal. The damage is well A) This thread. B) the complaints the moderators get over time (both directions now it seems; can't win for trying). C) the noise they create in a discussion forum. Is it the end of the world? Of course not. Are people being rude & disrespectful by not even checking with the site before submitting job postings. Hell yea!

Sorry, Alan, you will get little sympathy from me on this issue. After moderating this community through its birth and largest growth i can tell  you that people who don't read the guidelines and rules before posting are sooooo annoying.

As to the original suggestion the real point is if people read rules in the first place then we wouldn't have the problem. I.e. when we had the email only version that rule about "[JOB]" and a few others were ignored by about 25% of all recruiters (pro or in-house equally). So if they are going to be careless and disrespectful, it doesn't matter what the rule is, it will be ignored.

-- dave

25 Aug 2010 - 9:17pm
.pauric
2006

Dave: "As to the original suggestion the real point is if people read rules in the first place then we wouldn't have the problem."

Help me here because I'm having a really hard time telling whether you're yanking our collective chain or not.  Are you really suggesting the problem is that people wont RTFM?  That the system is "Working As Designed" and that a subset of users are doing it wrong?

In all seriousness, I understand what your saying.  However, I'd really like to hear you reconcile your defence of this broken workflow (or at least a workflow that, without any visable affordance, causes users to break the 'design') and the whole UCD thing.

cheers /pauric

 

26 Aug 2010 - 8:05am
netwiz
2010

I've suggested before that a link in the footer of these emails to 'post jobs here' would surely help, and avoid the need for people to RTFM. It's simple enough. I think it's reasonable enough to suggest that if people want job emails that there is a way they can subscribe to them.

  I would add that I don't (presently!) want job ads. A while ago because of a chance comment in one of these posts I went to check my subscription, and found that I was indeed subscribed to the job list, even though I have no recollection of having done so, and don't think I would have done so intentionally.

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:04 AM, pauric <radiorental@gmail.com> wrote:

Dave: "As to the original suggestion the real point is if people read rules in
the first place then we wouldn't have the problem."

Help me here because I'm having a really hard time telling whether you're yanking our collective chain or not.  Are you really suggesting the problem is that people wont RTFM?  That the system is "Working As Designed" and that a subset of users are doing it wrong?

In all seriousness, I understand what your saying.  However, I'd really like to hear you reconcile your defence of this broken workflow (or at least a workflow that, without any visable affordance, causes users to break the 'design') and the whole UCD thing.

cheers /pauric

 

(((Pl
26 Aug 2010 - 9:06am
miss ruffian
2010

I personally am offended at this message to Dave, to speak to a peer like that even with shorthand is rude and uncalled for and extremely unprofessional.

-----Original Message----- From: ixdaor@host.ixda.org [mailto:ixdaor@host.ixda.org] On Behalf Of pauric Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 11:58 PM To: Janet von Plato Subject: Re: [IxDA] Re: [IxDA] New rule for posting jobs

Dave: "As to the original suggestion the real point is if people read rules
in the first place then we wouldn't have the problem."

Help me here because I'm having a really hard time telling whether you're
yanking our collective chain or not.  Are you really suggesting the problem
is that people wont RTFM?  That the system is "Working As Designed" and that
a subset of users are doing it wrong?

In all seriousness, I understand what your saying.  However, I'd really like
to hear you reconcile your defence of this broken workflow (or at least a
workflow that, without any visable affordance, causes users to break the
'design') and the whole UCD thing.

cheers /pauric

 

(((P

26 Aug 2010 - 10:23am
.pauric
2006

Jane: "I personally am offended at this message to Dave, to speak to a peer like that even with shorthand is rude and uncalled for and extremely unprofessional."

You'll have to forgive me, I come from a place where men are men and sheep are nervous.  My aptitude for sensing when I offend others is somewhat undeveloped.  I'll grant you my post was blunt but Dave is a grown man and I think it's a stretch to think I've put his nose out of joint.

Could you please explain to me where you're taking objection from my post to David?  I'm not about to give you an insincere apology when I dont understand how you've been offended.

Thanks! /pauric

26 Aug 2010 - 11:01am
RichExperiences
2010

Yes, Jane, I don't think he was aiming the commonly used phrase Read The Manual (shorthand) AT Dave. Rather he was referring to the fact that people don't actually do it as often as they should. I certainly didn't take it as a direct attack. Just my 2c.

Rich

27 Aug 2010 - 6:53am
Dave Malouf
2005

I didn't feel attacked at all. so let's put that to rest. RTFM is just a colloquial reference and not meant in anger (if that is this issue) and I'm fine being called out. I think Pauric said elsewhere (thought it is hard to tell who said what sometimes across so many threads on the same topic; but that's a criticism for a different time) that I should be shot for suggesting that the user is wrong (though it does sound like something Pauric would say) and well that might seem offensive to others, but I just see that as a passionate calling out.

So I'll take on the calling out ...

Well, yes in social settings the user can be wrong. E.g. If I posted in twitter a spam message the damage is done. Sure you can report me. But I already filled 1million+ twitter feeds w/ my garbage. This is NOT a UCD issue. The end user did something wrong, that they aren't supposed to do and I am being disrespectful (rule breaking in that case is pretty clear, too) and the after the fact "solution" is well worse from a UCD perspective because now I've put the obligation on the victim to fix it. And quite honestly in the case of twitter the spam could be quite offensive and comes in many different formats.

Social software is different than say word processing software. You can't simply use the same blanket philosophies of UCD for the former that you use for the latter. Why? because social software is well social and requires a certain level of openness that the world of task software doesn't require. Our system here is quite open and there are 2 issues with that. The positive side is that anyone can say whatever they want. The negative side is that anyone can say whatever they want. And like the social conditions in the real world there is only the threat of authority in the end and the authenticity of that authority that truly keeps people from streaking through South Station at 8:30a on a Tuesday (or any day at any time). 

Now in the virtual world we do have better abilities to create "closings" of the community. For example there has been a clear call by some, including myself, to remove email as a means of directly engaging the community. This would allow so many controls to be put in place that would help THIS issue and many more to boot. But there would be backfire if we take away something that so many have learned to rely on, so there are consequences that "said authority" has to be ready to deal with before engaging such a solution.

Personally I think this image says why removing email has to happen at least short term. There are just too many holes in the current implementation and not enough hands and $ to fill them all.

So is it ONLY RTFM? heck no ... but if people are not going to be respectful of the social rules of engagement in a system then there are several options: a) Let chaos reign, get a thick skin and stop complaining; b) punish those who are out of line with the rules of the system -- USE the authority; c) create MORE controls so that people have a harder time breaking the rules (error prevention). But in this case while that fits nicely w/ UCD heuristics, it also has a social ramification. I.e. when we add controls for X we usually inadvertently add controls for A-Z as well which in turn impacts the very nature of things.

So it isn't an easy decision at all. But I do know that it is not a decision that "user"-centrism is enough. It is social-centrism as well that needs to be put in place.

-- daveixdaDiscussionHP.png

27 Aug 2010 - 9:13am
.pauric
2006

Dave, I agree with you 100% on the difference between UCD and Social design approach/consequences. However I feel this particular issue is not purely a result of bad social etiquette, it's not about spam or breaking norms.  Maybe some recruiters are flaunting the rules because they know a direct post to the list (not the jobs board) will get more eyes - but I doubt that.

I see this as a functional deficiency of the system not addressing certain users mental model of what they think system is.  I believe recruiters think their job is to tell us about jobs - mailing the list accomplishes that goal.  Nuances about what/where/how are overlooked, they might be busy, they might not have the full depth of experience in mailing list structure, they're web 2.0 kids who did not grow up in our antiquated world with it's archaic constraints

Functionally, error prevention is not a stretch for this particular issue (although such a design effort is unlikely given the current resources & priorities).  Everything with [jobs] goes to the jobs board, anything else that contains a set of keywords gets queued to a moderator.  You're right - this then affects the rest of the community, i.e. a rant about recruiters, but I see this as very marginal consequence where the pros far out weight the cons.


User centered and Social design rules are not mutually exclusive, a ucd approach to certain problems can correct social pathways - I think this is one of those cases.  Yes, 3 Strikes will fix the issue with a little tough love - but ask yourself as a designer, is it the right fix?  I think it's an engineering centered perspective.


Finally, As a user of the website I hear your call to fix the issues highlighted in that image, that's part of the reason of my outspoken critism of the design (for which I ask for forgiveness from the volunteers) but I think turning off email would be the nail in the coffin of list usage.
/pauric

 

p.s. I'm glad to see you recovered from those gun shot wounds.

27 Aug 2010 - 10:38pm
Dave Malouf
2005

I actually think the exact opposite. I think turning off email will all the community to start afresh. Even if we termporarily lost 50% (a LARGE # to be sure) and over a year built back only 50% of that loss (we regain back to 75% of where we are today in terms of population) I believe the quality of the community and the knowledge output would be that much more significant and thus our influence, affect and total success.

Even sheep sheer, and snakes shed ... removing people is as much a design reality as removing "design elements". 

It is impossible to keep designing from the point of view of pleasing everyone "now". We have to piss people off and then move forward from there.

If you are hear for the right reasons THIS change will not make that much of a difference to your commitment and engagement to the community and it will strengthen this community's ability to share and grow.

If I had to put my money on 1 # ... roulette wheel metaphor ... I'd put it down on removing email. Let's talk in a year after it happens and see where we are. 

Getting back to UCD. I do think that no matter how good your design is there is always going to be a segment of the population that just don't get it. In the case of social apps, I believe that segment increases exponentially compared to non-social apps b/c the reliant on social mores is so much more significant than simple task flows and even motivational analysis.

Yes, sometimes some users are wrong. That's reality.

-- dave

-- dave

30 Aug 2010 - 10:21am
.pauric
2006

Dave: "I actually think the exact opposite. I think turning off email will all the community to start afresh."

I'd like to see that, it would be the result of the 'nail in the coffin' I suggested - so we are in agreement.  Designing to support legacy is costly & problematic.  It would be painful to start afresh but I think it's becoming the necessary step to get out of the problems presented with conan.

Anyway, look at the posts generated by 10,000 'members'.  Most peopel I know who are email subscribers dump the list to a folder and hardly read it.  You have my backing (for whatever that is worth) to switch off email, I haven't used it in year - it doesn;t work with inbox zero.

cheers /pauric

Syndicate content Get the feed