Ask Slashdot: Is an Online Identity Important When Searching For Technical Jobs?

First time accepted submitter quintessentialk writes "I'm looking for a new engineering job. I'm in my early 30s, and have a degree and some experience. I don't have an online presence. Does it matter? Is a record of tweets, blog posts, articles, etc. expected for prospective employees these days? What if one is completely un-googleable (i.e., nothing comes up, good or bad)? Though I haven't been 'trying' to hide, I only rarely use my full name online and don't even have a consistent pseudonym. I don't have a website, and haven't blogged or tweeted. I'm currently in a field which does not publish. Should I start now, or is an first-time tweeter/blogger in 2013 worse than someone with no presence at all?"

Comments

As the song asks...

[pubwvj]

What do you do do?

If you're in IT especially and you're invisible you're suspicious. Lots of job applicants. What makes you stand out?

Re:As the song asks...

[Frosty Piss]

If you're in IT especially and you're invisible you're suspicious. Lots of job applicants. What makes you stand out?

I expect to see this opinion in more than a few posts on this thread, yet I'm surprised.

I just can't imagine how spending one's time "tweeting" or maintaining a Facebook page has much to do with what kind of employee I want, unless perhaps those "tweets" particularly socially unacceptable.

I *might* do a search of technical forums to see what kind of tech questions and answers my applicant is giving / asking.

But why would I - why SHOULD I - give a shit about my applicant's "tweets" unless perhaps they deal with bizarre rape fantisies or something, in which case I might reasonably wonder why my applicant isn't smart enough to use an alias?

In other words, in my opinion, your "tweets" and Facebook prattle have no interest to me in terms of evaluating your job skills. In fact, I might be uncomfortable with someone who spends too much time in an on-line world.

Re: As the song asks...

[uniquename72]

If your idea of "having an online presence" is tweeting and having a Facebook page, I would not hire you. Not that those are bad, but surely an IT guy can think of a thousand other ways of managing an online identity that are equally (or more) effective.

Re: As the song asks...

[uniquename72]

If your idea of "having an online presence" is tweeting and having a Facebook page, I would not hire you.

Re:As the song asks...

[Anonymous Coward]

"On-line presence" = Wasting time on narcissistic, unproductive and ultimately useless activities.

Re: As the song asks...

[dos1]

Exactly. Facebook and Twitter is not "online presence" in which IT employers are interested. GitHub, Ohloh, commits to free software projects, mailing lists etc. - that's "online presence" you should care about. You'll for sure have a good impression of someone if you put his name in Google and then you immediately see commits to various VCS repositories. That's also some kind of proof of his skills.

Re:As the song asks...

[djsmiley]

Isn't _everything_ ultimately useless? especially working for some kind of finacial reward which you'll spend on ultimately useless possessions or experiences.

Re:As the song asks...

[julesh]

Which is a bit narrow minded, I've done probably 30 hours worth of coding in my free time last week, but none of it's in github, and never will be.

This.

Some of us are working on non-open-source projects, because we have ideas we think might be profitable.

Some of us are working on projects that may become open source but don't want to publish until they're ready for end users (which could, in many cases, take years).

Some of us are working for startups that demand 80 hours a week of our time and don't have any time left for personal projects.

Not everyone can be judged by the same metrics.

Re: As the song asks...

[julesh]

Then understand that people who do find time to do those things will stand out more than you.

So I'm being penalized for working an 80 hour week for my current employer?

Is that really a sensible hiring policy?

Re:As the song asks...

[Jane Q. Public]

"Which is a bit narrow minded..."

Thank you for confirming my own opinion. In the past, when I was looking for more work, several times I've been asked before just about anything else if I had a github account, and and under what name.

I've spent a lot of time on private projects under NDA, which obviously don't go on github. I've offered to supply redacted sections of code. Etc. But it was clear in a couple of instances that having a strong github presence was necessary before they wold even consider someone.

That practice discriminates against people who are too busy actually working and trying to make a living to spend 100 hours on somebody's open source project. Sure, it's a good thing to do. But don't punish people who don't have as much opportunity as others.

Using github as a primary, or even worse only, criterion for hiring is just not very smart. Without claiming to be one of the best and brightest myself, I can see that by doing so they are rejecting some of the best and brightest out of hand, which does both parties no good.

Sure, take github and the like as a couple of extra brownie points in the developer's favor. Everything else being equal, I'd hire someone who is involved in charitable work over the other guy... but the key phrase is "everything else being equal". I would not use it as a primary basis for hiring in a technical field.

Re: As the song asks...

[Jmc23]

If you're working an 80 hour week, you're not very bright to begin with!

Re: As the song asks...

[The Cat]

Translation: They are 19 years old, have no responsibilities, do not have to make a mortgage or a payroll and since they are willing to work for free, will be very flexible when it comes to pay and hours.

Have a nice day.

Re: As the song asks...

[icebike]

Exactly. Facebook and Twitter is not "online presence" in which IT employers are interested. GitHub, Ohloh, commits to free software projects, mailing lists etc. - that's "online presence" you should care about. You'll for sure have a good impression of someone if you put his name in Google and then you immediately see commits to various VCS repositories. That's also some kind of proof of his skills.

And turning the issue upside down, why in the name of all that is rational would you want to work for a company that evaluated you by social web posts rather than work product, and education?

What does that say about your chances of getting fair evaluations, promotions, and advancement based on your efforts and work output?

Unless you were seeking employment with a political party or a church, I would consider any such digging into web posting as violation of civil rights by that company, akin to asking how I voted, or checking my church affiliation, or demanding a list of past girlfriends.

Run away from such employers like your hair is on fire.

Re: As the song asks...

[icebike]

Being busy is a code word for being gainfully employed.
Also code for not spending your efforts trying to figure out how to give as little effort to your job as possible in order to post your best work on some obscure website.

Heavy involvement in an open source project is not always beneficial to an employer, especially when you show up for work mentally exhausted and watch the clock all day so you can get back to what is obviously more important to you than helping your employer.

Re:As the song asks...

[ColdWetDog]

If you don't have a facebook page (with friends...) the question of 'why not' arises.

Are you kidding? You state this on Slashdot?

There are dozens of reasons NOT to have a Facebook account. There are even good reasons for not having a Linkdn account (been spammed there more times than I care to recall). Twitter?

Good grief kids, you can have an active social and professional life with just a telephone. It's not hard - billions of people do it.

Re: As the song asks...

[DrVxD]

Working 80 hours a week is dumb.

I don't hire dumb people.

Re: As the song asks...

[Jane Q. Public]

"f his previous employer really thought he was good, he wouldn't be looking for a new job. I give a glowing reference to any ex-employee who asks for one. Why should I care if you hire a turd? When I am hiring, I have found references to be so unreliable, that I don't even both to ask for them."

Absolute garbage.

First, I often work on a contract basis ("freelance", if you prefer). Projects only last so long, then they are over. So yes, I am looking for work, and have had a lot of short-term "employers". I also have some glowing, HONEST reviews.

" I give a glowing reference to any ex-employee who asks for one. Why should I care if you hire a turd?"

Because this is grossly hypocritical behavior. No doubt you would be pissed off to no end if someone else did the same to you, and you hired someone with great reviews who turned out to be a lemon. You appear to be one of those who pollute the entire job market with their bullshit, then wonder why they can't find good workers.

"For my last opening I got 200 resumes. I interviewed five of them. If your resume doesn't stand out, there will be no interview."

See, there you go. Contradicting yourself.

Do you need a clearance?

[Technician]

If your technical job requires a TS or above clearance, it is best ot have very little presence. Party life or drug refrences in your posts will work against you in your background investigation for the clearance.

Damn Extroverts

[danaris]

Frankly, any company that expects any given hire to have an extensive record of blog posts and tweets is not one I would really want to work for.

Not just because of the privacy implications, but because, in my view, that's expecting me to have a particular kind of personality: one that feels compelled to share everything, or at least a frequent chunk of what I do and think.

Unfortunately, this is just another manifestation of extroverts running most organizations and not even truly comprehending what it might be not to be an extrovert. So much of the hiring process and expectations in the workplace are centered around things that give extroverts a charge, but drain introverts' energy badly.

Just one of my big pet peeves X-P

Dan Aris

Re:Damn Extroverts

[b4dc0d3r]

You stopped just short of where I was hoping you would go - Narcissism.

Facebook is a mirror and Twitter is a megaphone, according to a new University of Michigan study exploring how social media reflect and amplify the culture's growing levels of narcissism.

Facebook offers the chance to seek approval and validation, as well as feedback to alter your behavior - the link refers to this as "curating" your online presence. If you do curating that steps over into reputation management, you can look like you're trying to hide something instead of show something.

LinkedIn and similar sites about careers and such are still social media, but they are more about professional networking to increase the chances of you knowing the right people for a job change. Almost goes without saying these sites are not helpful when you are new to a career, unless you know key people, in which case you're already set.

The specific personality they want may be a narcissistic extrovert, who would do well in banking and finance, or as a CxO. Perhaps they are looking for sociopathic tendencies, because they tend to rise to the top. Or maybe they know better.

It's not just about introversion/extroversion - there is a huge amount of insight that a person will get in how you choose to express yourself, maybe not to the point of individual personality disorders, but just a gut feeling that someone is a little too this or that.

I have a tendency to detect flaws in logical arguments, or basic failure to reason, and it drives me nutso. I have posted many a tirade here pointing out those flaws, even when I agree with the premise. Sometimes people correct me, and I learn. I post mostly anonymously so I can float some trial balloons from time to time and see what gets shot down. My online presence is finding and pointing out flaws, or arguing the other side so that people can either see their own flawed rationalization or actually strengthen their argument. My job involves finding problems with requirements, design, or architecture, and being able to argue that point, so now that I've considered it for the first time, I see it as a natural extension.

1. Do not create an unnatural online presence - only do what feels right, which could be nothing at all
2. Do not create something that feels burdensome to manage, as it will go stale and you will look silly when I interview you
3. Do look at what other people have done. A lot of it has built up over time, time that you may not have. Nothing you can do about that.
4. If your employer wants your online passwords, and you don't have them, they may not believe you. You don't want to work for that company, not one bit
5. To follow from that, if your online presence helps you get a job, did you really want that job? Or would you prefer a harder-to-find employer that fits your style better?
6. Online presence means people can troll or otherwise make you look bad. Even if you do not allow comments, or use a platform that lends itself to discussion, they can show up in search results with a clear link back to your presence. It's just something to consider when you decide where and now to set up, or not to.

Silence speaks volumes

[PairOfBlanks]

I think your social media silence says quite a lot about what kind of person you are. If I were looking for someone to keep the company's secrets, it'd be you.

Online presence is a self-marketing tool

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two choices for online presence that makes sense to me:
  - avoid it completely
  or
  - use it only as a self-marketing tool. Only blog/tweet about technical stuff, no politics, current affairs, funny pictures. Only use social networks that bring value to you. I use LinkedIn, but it might be not useful for everyone. Always assume that whatever you put there is public, even if it says "private". Ignore trolls. Praise other projects freely, but be reluctant to post negative opinions. In general, be constructive.

No. Nobody cares

[AuMatar]

Nobody's going to even look. All we care about is can you do the job. The only exception is if the job is in marketing, then they may care about your use of social media.

Not a single police force

[kawabago]

Not a single police force has tried to hire me since I started using medical marijuana. Just try to get a pilot's license! Oddly, if you drink, they'll trust you not to fly drunk but if you use medical marijuana they won't trust you at all.

Re:Not a single police force

[evilviper]

if you drink, they'll trust you not to fly drunk but if you use medical marijuana they won't trust you at all.

Probably has a lot to do with the fact that marijuana is still a schedule-1 drug, and completely illegal at the federal level.

Having it helps, not having it doesn't hurt

[CrankyFool]

I work for a well-known technical company with tons of both open-source contributions and projects we've open-sourced ourselves; we have a techblog, and a presence in many conferences.

When we look at someone technical, we see if they have a presence online. That doesn't mean Twitter or Facebook -- we really don't care about them unless they're public and inappropriate -- but contributions to OSS, technical blog posts, talks, etc. If it's there, it may make us somewhat more interested.

That said, I have a few engineers working for me who are similarly Google-invisible, and who have no interest in creating OSS, speaking at conferences, or writing blog posts. That's not a problem. They weren't penalized when we interviewed them, and they're not penalized now.

I suspect that a company, given the choice between a famous engineer and a non-famous engineer who are equally qualified, may be biased to hire the famous engineer (in my company, we'd just hire both), so I suspect it's an informal edge, not an explicit expectation (most of the time).