Yet another Hacker News

23 points BelVisgarra 3 hours ago 44 comments

Online job scams seem increasingly common. I'm curious whether people would actually use a job board where every job listing is verified before being published. Would something like this make you more likely to search for jobs there?

antonymoose 2 hours ago | parent

What makes a job verified in this case? You can easily verify a firm exists, but that’s not really the critical part. The question “is this a ghost job with no intention to be filled” is the real struggle.

BelVisgarra 2 hours ago | parent

Good point. Verifying that a company exists is relatively easy, but confirming that the role is actually open and actively being hired for is definitely harder. I was thinking verification could include confirming the recruiter’s identity and requiring employers to periodically confirm that the position is still active. Ghost jobs are definitely an important challenge.

pavel_lishin 2 hours ago | parent

> confirming the recruiter’s identity and requiring employers to periodically confirm that the position is still active.

If a position is only listed due to a requirement, and is already basically guaranteed to someone making an internal transfer, knowing the recruiter's identity and having a manager pinky-swear the job offer is real does nothing.

BelVisgarra 1 hour ago | parent

That definitely makes things harder. Roles posted for internal transfers or compliance reasons are tricky because they may never have been intended for external candidates. Maybe verification would need signals showing that the role is actually open to external applicants. I wonder if something like an “externally open role” label would help.

aeonfox 1 hour ago | parent

Add a visible count of how many verified applicants got verified jobs at the verified business. Higher count increases confidence.

didgetmaster 25 minutes ago | parent

If I knew that a company had paid a refundable fee (e.g $1000), that was only paid back if the job was filled by someone outside the company within 6 months; then I would take it much more seriously.

AnimalMuppet 15 minutes ago | parent

I like it. Now, what are you going to do to employees? How do they verify (to the board and/or the employer) that they're who they say they are, and are serious about looking?

I like this for employers. Money talks and baloney walks; if you're serious, prove it. But that could come down badly on desperate employees - Either take a job that you decide you don't like, or lose a significant amount of money. And yet, the "not seriously looking" issue is on both sides.

And even for employers, you have to gate this. Something like, they get the $1000 back if, after six months, the board has not supplied them with N qualified candidates. (Which gets back to the employee issue: How do you prove they're qualified?)

I like the idea in general. Really, I do. But I'm not sure it solves the whole problem. (And maybe it doesn't need to in order to be a good step forward.)

For amusement value, consider the following wrinkle: If a company forfeits the $1000, the board keeps $200. The other $800 gets split among the candidates whose time the company wasted.

fogzen 2 hours ago | parent

I want a job board that can filter companies like ATS filters candidates. I want to know salary, benefits, equity comp, tech stack, and workflow practices like CI, test suite time, test coverage, meetings per week, etc.

BelVisgarra 2 hours ago | parent

That’s an interesting point. Transparency about things like salary, tech stack, and engineering practices would probably make job boards much more useful. It sounds like verification alone might not be enough without better information about the role.

hwhshs 2 hours ago | parent

It exists. Linkedin seems to have such jobs.

BelVisgarra 2 hours ago | parent

That’s true, platforms like LinkedIn try to verify companies. What I’m more curious about is whether people would value deeper verification of the actual job posting itself, not just the company.

hwhshs 2 hours ago | parent

Hmm. That is a hard one. Not sure how you verify it is a genuine job or the JD is accurate. Id like it but not sure it is possible.

raw_anon_1111 2 hours ago | parent

No.

A job being “verified” doesn’t solve the main problem post around 2023. Every single job opening gets hundreds of openings within the first day of it being opened.

If you are looking for a job as any type of generic developer - full stack, front end, mobile, back end, it’s almost impossible to stand out from the crowd. No, “I reversed a btree on the whiteboard to get into big tech as a mid level developer” doesn’t make you special.

If you do have a specialized set of skills that allows you to stand out from the crowd, you still shouldn’t be randomly spamming job boards and you should be able to sell yourself to someone at the company.

My personal anecdote. In my specialty - AWS + app dev + leading strategic initiatives, I’m very well credentialed (trust me on this) and in a certain niche of AWS, I was considered one of the industry experts at the time (again trust me).

But when randomly spamming job boards on a lark in 2023, I heard nothing.

That was always a plan B while I was waiting for what ended up being three offers via my network and one by reaching out to a company who specialized in my niche of AWS.

I’m not bragging, I am old. I should have a network and credentials.

tryauuum 2 hours ago | parent

Jesus christ, AWS has niches

This shouldn't surprise me, knowledge of a code base is a competitive advantage. But there is just something depressing about it. Maybe it being closed source and you having to learn it by being burned by undocumented behavior? Please tell more

raw_anon_1111 1 hour ago | parent

It’s Amazon Connect - a popular hosted call center solution ported to AWS from Amazon Retail. There are people and companies that do nothing but Amazon Connect. But that’s all they know. I’m a developer first with well rounded experience with AWS. It’s just the niche that helps me stand out a little when I was looking for a job and now internally where I work for a third party consulting company. But you can throw me at almost any AWS related project and I’ve probably done something related over the past 8 years.

I talked a little bit about Connect here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47241412

I worked at AWS ProServe / their internal consulting department - full time blue badge RSU earning employee - and I was one of the highest contributors to a popular at the time open source “AWS Solution” around Connect and I had my own open source projects published under AWS’s open source GitHub organization.

BTW, I would never use the “solution” now. There are a lot better ways to do it post gen AI.

The thing was, it was years before AWS introduced APIs around Connect and even longer before they have CloudFormation support. I was the first to use those APIs at scale for clients and found and reported bugs to the team while I was there.

lazypenguin 1 hour ago | parent

Yes, we recently posted for an entry/mid level position and we got 1800 applications in a few days. It’s impossible to filter the list, I spent several hours to see how feasible it was and after getting through maybe 150 applications I gave up. We’re a small team, we don’t have the resources to cut through the noise without just blanket rejecting people. There doesn’t need to be a board that vets jobs, there needs to be a board that vets candidates and makes it easier for companies find their ideal candidate.

raw_anon_1111 1 hour ago | parent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem

How do you vet mid level and entry developers? I know that sounds like a dumb question. But I only expect a mid level developer especially enterprise developers to turn well defined requirements into code. The bar is especially low in the age of AI. One is basically interchangeable for another. I have only interviewed senior level developers - ie people who I expect to operate on a higher level of scope, impact and ambiguity.

Those are easy to filter out via a few behavioral questions.

operatingthetan 1 hour ago | parent

Do what everyone is doing (for better or worse): feed those into a CLI LLM, have it give you a csv of the top 20 candidates based on some criteria, manually review those.

raw_anon_1111 48 minutes ago | parent

What are the top 20 candidates if you just need a random “full stack developer”? All of their resumes look exactly the same.

operatingthetan 20 minutes ago | parent

If they are actually "exactly the same" and your criteria is a "random" developer then does it matter which you pick? Look for extracurriculars like active github, personal website/blog, open source contributions, vibe coding skills, etc. I bet 75% of the job market right now is being done on referrals anyway. Tap your network.

sdevonoes 1 hour ago | parent

99% of the engineers out there are generic ones (including myself)… and most of us are working.

raw_anon_1111 55 minutes ago | parent

If you take away my AWS account and my ability to “add on to what Becky said” and “look at things from a 1000 foot view”, I am a “generic developer” and was one for 25 years.

That doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that “generic developers” are a dime a dozen and it’s hard to stand out from the crowd using an ATS. I just said I had the same issue when experimenting with ATS’s.

1123581321 2 hours ago | parent

Probably not, as you’d essentially be performing the function of a recruiter, but not providing the ability for applicants to skip the initial steps of the hiring process by talking to you. Recruiters already list their open jobs in board-like software.

brudgers 2 hours ago | parent

To a large degree, the problem with job boards is job boards are a two sided market for lemons

On the one hand, applicants are applicant who cannot find a job through people they know and the companies are companies who cannot find candidates through people they know Good jobs and good employees come through relationships and you cannot automate relationships.

Relationships are hard. Good luck.

dzonga 2 hours ago | parent

what's the value add ?

what are you offering to candidates - a better interview experience (been tried before etc, those companies closed)

you want to solve a problem, however you are trying solve the problem at a wrong abstraction level -

the problem with the tech market hiring is a coordination problem

BelVisgarra 1 hour ago | parent

I see what you mean about it being a coordination problem. Do you think the main issue is that job boards create too much noise — hundreds of applications — instead of helping companies and candidates find better matches? If that's the case, what kind of system do you think would improve that coordination?

bootsmann 2 hours ago | parent

Imo it might be worthwhile creating a job board that solves the “company-side” issue with the current recruitment process where 200 people will spam AI generated slop CV to every post that opens up. Some kind of account coupled with a ratelimit and you should already deliver some value to people recruiting.

moralestapia 2 hours ago | parent

The answer is yes, and I speak for everybody. People use job boards anyway, why not use another one with the +1 that, at least, you won't get scammed.

Everyone likes to pretend this and that, "I wouldn't do it", "what problem do you solve", etc. I've published many jobs and they all come like hyenas fighting over scraps.

Don't listen to them, just build the thing; they'll use it, they need the bread, lmao.

bitfilped 2 hours ago | parent

No, I don't use job boards.

hmokiguess 1 hour ago | parent

What’s an example of a job scam? How does the scammer benefits from it? I have never heard of this, just looking to learn more about it.

SlightlyLeftPad 1 hour ago | parent

For one, it’s a form of personal information harvesting. People tend to apply with non-burner accounts

hmokiguess 1 hour ago | parent

and I assume the value here would be some data broker deal? feels odd to me still

apothegm 33 minutes ago | parent

Also used for identity theft.

basilikum 27 minutes ago | parent

Identity theft: You have to verify your identity for the job, but in reality they trick you into handing over personal data, your SSN or id scans or completing some actual identity verification – that isn't just copying pixels or numbers – where you think you are verifying for the job offer, but in reality you complete the verification for e.g. opening a bank account in your name that they then control. Of course the identity verification service should check that you really know what you are verifying for, but that doesn't mean they actually do or the scammers might have some excuse to explain the discrepancy; like you get a job at a bank and to start working you have to open an account with them because salary or benefits get credited there. Helpfully they create the account for you and all you have to do is do the identity verification.

Variations of advance fee scams: Can be simple like you got a job but have to pay a fee to the head hunting agency that you'll get reimbursed on top of your first salary from your new employer of course, or more advanced: Your job involves buying products or services and testing or auditing them.

Money mules and laundering: As part of your job you have to forward money between your and external accounts. This is less obvious than the advance fee. You get the money first, you just don't know that you are funnelling the money from other scams to the scammers.

These things might seem easy to see through in theory, but they prey on desperate people in hardship. You believe to have finally found a job and all seems well during the onboarding process. Maybe it takes a little longer with a little back and forth or multiple interviews until you are emotionally invested into the job offering. Of course it seems weird that you have to pay out of your own pocket for a product you do QA testing for before you receive any money from them. But you have to deliver if you want to keep the job. After all they have many more options of applicants to choose from while for you this is the only job offer you got after months of searching.

neom 1 hour ago | parent

https://www.news.google.com/search?q=ghost+jobs - ghost jobs are a real problem - I don't know if this is the solution.

pluc 1 hour ago | parent

Verified how?

The poster has an account? No

The poster has confirmed an email address? No

The poster has a confirmed email address that is associable to the business? Maybe

The poster has a confirmed email address that is associable to the business and their name is verifiable as HR/Hiring Manager/Someone in a legitimate position to post this offer? Sure

aeonfox 1 hour ago | parent

Has a registered business that's been around longer than 6 months.

Has a confirmed business phone number, called by a human that verifies another human is on the other end.

Has a confirmed business address (mail them the confirmation code).

Has a website that's been around longer then 6 months.

Has a Google Maps location that's been around longer than 6 months.

spy888 1 hour ago | parent

You have to think through the applicant issue. As a hiring manager every time I post a job i get hundreds of applicants and most are not viable for different reasons. A verified listing does nothing to help me deal with the influx of low quality and fake applicants.

fortran77 1 hour ago | parent

There's two sides to this. Companies need to be able to make sure they're able to locate (and not miss) viable candidates. But job-seekers need to know there's a legitimate company and an actual job. There are many job scams out there, especially for entry level, low-skill jobs.

In my early days, I once went through three interviews for a small "start up." On the third round, the founder admitted he couldn't pay me in anything but "equity" even though I specifically asked about funding and compensation on the first interview. (I got a very early "Craigs List" to pull the job listing--with an personal reply from Craig Newmark--and the "employer" settled with me for several thousand after I sent a demand letter and filed a claim in Santa Clara County small claims court for fraud.)

maxaw 1 hour ago | parent

Curious - are there not good tools for filtering through applications? there must be a lot of llm related offerings

joeyguerra 1 hour ago | parent

the job-to-be-done is connecting the job to the right person. Not job verification.

I built a mobile app dev team in fintech years ago. I remember one person was literally selling their house and moving and was looking for a job. Call it luck, serendipitous, what you will, but the "connection" was made at the right time, right place.

How do we solve that problem more effectively? Cuz right now it's a roll of the dice, constant linkedin messages, etc.

siliconc0w 1 hour ago | parent

Cyrpto had some interesting takes on these sort of problems that we haven't really applied more broadly.

The way I'd design a job board is require the applicant to escrow X and the job poster to escrow Y*X. Y is is the trust ratio. Given a bad experience, either the side can 'burn' the other and send both escrowed amounts to charity. An okay trust ratio might be 10, meaning they'll give you 10:1 burn ratio. A good one might be 100 or 1000. At that point they are essentially handing you a big stick to beat them with if they misbehave.

This would entirely eliminate spam and ghost jobs - suddenly everyone would be magically really responsive and polite.

smnscu 53 minutes ago | parent

Otta in the UK (now eaten by the inexplicably-named Welcome to the Jungle) used to have a very involved vetting process during company onboarding, and I could verify that it was a great service as both a candidate and a hiring manager. To replicate what you want ("every listing is verified") there's no silver bullet but a good vetting process like that goes a long way.

Another site I like is cord.com, which seems to prioritise companies where recruiters are active on that website, I've had a good experience with that one as well, as you get to chat with an actual recruiter in a matter of hours or days.

1970-01-01 45 minutes ago | parent

Hiring is so broken that this just isn't enough. We really need an IETF RFC for open positions. A full-blown TCP-like protocol for an open position, with TTL, SYN ACK handshakes, and data encryption. Anything else is half-assing it. I'm only half joking. It's pretty bad today.