Slashdot Mirror
Resume Spamming Redux
wiredog writes "Remember this story about the guy who spammed his resume? Well, now the Washington Post is reporting that resume spamming is a trend. Enough of a trend to have generated a backlash!"
Amusing fallout from an amusing story, and hopefully a lesson for
others too.
Job sites like Monster really encourage spamming prospective hirers as well.
You set up an online resume, and can 1-click send it to the employers of your choice. I was laid off in September, and I sent out 200 resumes in 1 day in this way.
How many callbacks from those, and from all the resumes I sent out over the next month? NOT ONE. And I am not surprised, I can only imagine the number of resumes they are recieving.
Although this isn't the same as all-out spamming, employer spam via job sites online is running rampant and is only going to get worse, which is bad for potentially good candidates as they are lost in the sea of Monster.com email notifications...
Mark
Does it strike anyone else as just a little bit foolish to send a message out to hundreds of strangers containing (presumably) your full name, address, phone number and valid email address ?
Identity theft, anyone ? Not to mention that you set yourself up for reverse spam...
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
Any sensible employer should refuse to hire a person who chain-guns his résumé to a hundred different people precisely because doing it that way is the easy way out! If you want to be employed, demonstrate that you are willing to go to all the trouble of actually doing it right. Otherwise you're simply telling people, "I'm too lazy to get off my butt and put a little effort into being hired."
--Ford Prefect
True enough...
I think the only places that'll matter are those which have automated systems. Then they're looking for the right keywords.
Of course, if you have to spam, chances are, you don't have the right keywords.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
The same applies to this Slashdot discussion. The people who have the technology openings people want are probably Slashdot readers (<SARCASM>who would want to work for someone who wasn't Slashdot-aware?</SARCASM>). Or perhaps you've already hired some outstanding candidate who found a way to get your attention without resorting to spam.
So let's put the question to you:
You know, before I fell in love with computers and the many related disciplines, I spent a lot of years in the restaurant industry, in a variety of managerial and non managerial capacities. The one service lesson that came though again and again was that one bad impression can counter-balance easily a world of good impressions. You had to treat every customer like they were the most important person in the world; and I think that's a good maxim for any business.
That's why it was especially disconcerting to read one girl's comment in the article to the effect that if she got even one good offer, she was unconcerned about pissing off everyone else. If the first maxim is true, that one bad experience offsets a hundred or more good one's then how much exponentially worse must it be to create a hundred bad impressions on the low yield opprotunity of creating a good one. I suspect it might be alright to send someone a resume that is not necessarily solicited. After all, you never know until you try. But this means addressing a personal correspondence to a specific relevant person at your targeted company. I hope nobody gets any ideas from this.
Oops
Sending your resume to 28 companies can hardly be considered spamming. I had to send out over 100 during a job search three years ago. Part of the trick is to not make a mass mailing list - I sent out each one individually. It had a form cover letter, but I personalized each one as much as possible.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Shifman got no more than he deserved.
Did he?
it's obvious that Bernie Shifman is a moron asshole spammer, and on that basis I have no sympathy for him. But what Neil Schwartzman has done goes a little too far IMHO. He's posted Bernie's home address, phone number, aerial pictures of his apartment on his Web site. The popularity of that site has now given Bernie the dubious honor of "The Most Hated Man on the Internet" (Bill Gates notwithstanding). Shifman is no doubt the recepient of thousands of harassing phone calls, e-mails, people outside his apartment, etc. He will never be able to get a decent job again, and his life is all but ruined.
And yet he has been proved guilty of no crime.
Is this the best that the so-called egalitarian culture of the Internet has to offer? I don't see any Jonathan Katz articles standing up for the rights of this guy, who's currently getting the electronic equivalent of a lynching.
Yes, Bernie's moronic threats and accusations are highly amusing, but it's important to remember that there's a real person behind them. A person of obviously diminished capacity, who honestly thought he was doing the right thing. If Bernie Shifman were to commit suicide tomorrow, how would Neil Schwartzman and everyone else who took part in making this guy's life hell feel?
(And yes, the case can be made that Bernie did include his personal information in his spam, but does that mean he gave up his right to privacy? How many strangers do I have to send my resume to before I can make the assumption it'll be spread all over the Web? 5? 50? 500? 5000? Where's the line?)
In the end, I think this is really a matter between Bernie and Neil, and those are the two that need to settle it. I hate spam just as much as the next guy, but I think people need to be proven guilty (in a court of law) before being condemmed. Let's not all let ourselves be guided by mob rule. The Internet was built for better things than this.
it's obvious that Bernie Shifman is a moron asshole spammer, and on that basis I have no sympathy for him. But what Neil Schwartzman has done goes a little too far IMHO. He's posted Bernie's home address, phone number, aerial pictures of his apartment on his Web site. The popularity of that site has now given Bernie the dubious honor of "The Most Hated Man on the Internet" (Bill Gates notwithstanding). Shifman is no doubt the recepient of thousands of harassing phone calls, e-mails, people outside his apartment, etc. He will never be able to get a decent job again, and his life is all but ruined.
And this is a problem how? His actions, and his actions alone have made him "The Most Hated Man On the Internet" If he'd apologized to Neil, promised to never do it again and behaved like a decent human being, instead of threatening lawsuits with every other sentence do you think that he would nearly as hated? Even if Neil had posted the exchange under those circumstances would it have made Slashdot headlines? ("Moron spammer issues apology and stops spamming")
Yes, Bernie's moronic threats and accusations are highly amusing, but it's important to remember that there's a real person behind them. A person of obviously diminished capacity, who honestly thought he was doing the right thing. If Bernie Shifman were to commit suicide tomorrow, how would Neil Schwartzman and everyone else who took part in making this guy's life hell feel?
Though I took no active role in harrassing Bernie I certianlly wouldn't mourn his passing. Yes that's a cold hearted, vile thing to say but it's true. Likewise I wouldn't be upset if every person who ever sent me spam took their own lives, same goes for Hillary Rosen and "Smiling" Jack Valentii - all people who have in some way made my life (and many others) just a little bit more miserable their sudden absence would be like a ray of sunshine.
(And yes, the case can be made that Bernie did include his personal information in his spam, but does that mean he gave up his right to privacy? How many strangers do I have to send my resume to before I can make the assumption it'll be spread all over the Web? 5? 50? 500? 5000? Where's the line?)
One.
If your sending personal info to random strangers you've already given up your right to privacy. Maybe Bernie should've researched Neils privacy policy before sending him personal info?
In the end, I think this is really a matter between Bernie and Neil, and those are the two that need to settle it. I hate spam just as much as the next guy, but I think people need to be proven guilty (in a court of law) before being condemmed. Let's not all let ourselves be guided by mob rule. The Internet was built for better things than this
Bernies not being punished for a crime, he's being smacked by his peers for an amazing, and continued, breach of etiquitte(sp?) Anyway all Neil did was post the facts (+ some personal opinion) of his communications with Bernie and other some other publically available information. Final judgement was left to the reader, as was what (if any) action to take against him.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
>>"Hey baby...wanna f---ok, that's cool...hey you over THERE, wanna f---...no?...ok, how about you, then?"
Ummm, back when I used to drink, I actually did just that. Sort of a drunken pickup spam. Mostly I got smacked, but believe it or not, it actually worked!
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---