RFD ba.jobs.offered.nontech - or some such thing
Oliver Kilroy Jr.
Summary:
Keywords:
ba.jobs.offered has recently been getting 100 - 200 postings per work day
- mostly technical positions (programming and engineering).
ba.jobs.misc - is supposed to be for discussion of bay area employment
(according to my reader) not for posting.
There is a mixture of technical, non technical and contract jobs posted
on ba.jobs.offered with the preponderance being full time technical
positions.
There was a quick thread about non tech jobs recently that gained some
support.... 5-6 quick responses of yes to 'I'd like to see non tech jobs too'
There are several ba.market categories. There is a ba.* oriented toward
contractors.
Would adding a group ba.jobs.offered.nontech
attract more non technical postings?
attract more non technical job seekers?
reduce the amount of irreleveant postings both technical and non
technical users have to review?
Thereby helping all users at the same time.
My thought is that such an area would build over time eventually needing
some sort of separation, perhaps like ba.jobs.offered needs now.... think
about:
ba.jobs.offered.programming
ba.jobs.offered.engineering
ba.jobs.offered.contract
ba.jobs.offered.nontech
splitting ba.jobs.offered into three. Think about adding nontech as a
minimum.
Any thoughts?
OK
--
Oliver Kilroy Jr. <oki...@rahul.net>
Eric Lowell Davis
My first response is, its about time. I rarely have time to sift through all
the tech jobs that are not eliminated by my kill strings.
I predict, based on no scientific evidence, that the number of nontech
net users will double within a year. The demand for ba...nontech will
surge..
I think the only question is the name of the newsgroup. nontech is clear
enough. On behalf of poli-sci majors everywhere, I cast my vote in favor
of .nontech!
-Eric Davis
er...@uclink.berkeley.edu
Mark Higuera
[stuff deleted]
: There was a quick thread about non tech jobs recently that gained some
: support...5-6 quick responses of yes to 'I'd like to see non tech jobs too'
[stuff deleted]
: My thought is that such an area would build over time eventually needing
: some sort of separation, perhaps like ba.jobs.offered needs now.... think
: about:
: ba.jobs.offered.programming
: ba.jobs.offered.engineering
: ba.jobs.offered.contract
: ba.jobs.offered.nontech
: splitting ba.jobs.offered into three. Think about adding nontech as a
: minimum.
My concern about any form of splitting wouldn't really help the job
seeker, since he/she would still have to end up checking all of the
groups. After all, who's to say how a given job would be classified?
It would also tend to make posters cross-post to the different groups,
thus increasing network traffic. I'm afraid a "non-tech" group would
get very few postings. Let's face it, those who seek work via the
internet are still, for the most part, technically-oriented. When I
see non-tech jobs posted, I usually take interest if they might pertain
to some friend who's looking for work.
That said, my $.02 worth is that it might be useful to sort postings
by the level of experience needed: entry-level, jr., med., sr., guru.
But these distinctions can be made in the subject line, so that doesn't
justify creating a new group.
In conclusion, I think it's too early to start splitting b.j.o.
--
O, mickle is the powerful grace that lies/In herbs, plants, stones, and
their true qualities:/For naught so vile that on the earth doth live,/But
to the earth some special good doth give;/Nor aught so good, but, strain'd
from that fair use,/Revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse:/ Virtue
itself turns vice, being misapplied;/And vice sometime's by action dignified.
Mark Higuera <-+-> mhig...@biostat.ucsf.edu <-+-> mhig...@netcom.com
John Lazzaro
> Any thoughts?
I think these ideas won't fly without cooperation from the recruiters,
who seem to make up the bulk of the postings on the offered group,
Considering how many recruiter postings show up in ba.jobs.misc, which
is specifically supposed to be a discussion group, I doubt there will
be enough compliance to make the scheme fly. This may be inevitable in
a newsgroup where the posters and the readers form (mostly) disjoint
sets ...
Mark N Sole
: ba.jobs.offered has recently been getting 100 - 200 postings per work day
: There is a mixture of technical, non technical and contract jobs posted
: on ba.jobs.offered with the preponderance being full time technical
: positions.
: Would adding a group ba.jobs.offered.nontech
: attract more non technical postings?
probably not, but ould make it easier for non-tech job seekers
: attract more non technical job seekers?
see above
: reduce the amount of irreleveant postings both technical and non
: technical users have to review?
: My thought is that such an area would build over time eventually needing
: some sort of separation, perhaps like ba.jobs.offered needs now.... think
: about:
: ba.jobs.offered.programming
: ba.jobs.offered.engineering
: ba.jobs.offered.contract
: ba.jobs.offered.nontech
I might add ba.jobs.offered.recruiters given that o many of the recent
posting are ad infinitem from headhunters
: splitting ba.jobs.offered into three. Think about adding nontech as a
: minimum.
As more non-tech users come on the net doing marketing and product
development, a non-tech area ould be great.
Mark Sole
--
Mark N. Sole
ms...@netcom.com
Eugene N. Miya
>> Any thoughts?
Two points.
It's got nothing to do with a job offering, so I removed *jobs.offered.
Set Followups appropriately, so people who post followups to subsequent other
posts should remove the irrelevant groups. Otherwise you tag yourself
to potential employers (negatively).
I'm leading a bunch of people who are reorganizing misc.jobs.*.
The structure we are going to use hasn't been decided yet, because we
have to follow Usenet voting procedures, and we have decided to do this
best in two stages (implying it's going to take four months).
Proceed with your discussion, but note that the wider ranging net probably
isn't going to look like a larger version of ba.jobs.*.
I'm not telling you to wait, I'm just letting you know that ba.jobs' parent
is changing, too.
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eug...@orville.nas.nasa.gov
One of the FAQ maintainers to m.j.*
Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
{uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
My 2nd favorite use of a flame thrower is the remake of "The Thing."
A Ref: Uncommon Sense, Alan Cromer, Oxford Univ. Press, 1993.
Julie Lewis
available on these groups. However, I don't think a new
group is the answer.
If certain recruiters would refrain from posting THE SAME 10 JOBS
EVERY FRIGGIN DAY. The traffic wouldn't be so bad. Recommending
some kind of header format so we could use KILL files on certain
kinds of postings would be helpful too, although I don't know
how we'd enforce compliance...
--
Julie Lewis j...@synopsys.com I speak for myself, not for Synopsys.
Did I say that?
Roger L. Tinkoff
Eric> : : ba.jobs.offered.nontech My first response is, its about time.
Eric> I rarely have time to sift through all the tech jobs that are not
Eric> eliminated by my kill strings.
Eric> I predict, based on no scientific evidence, that the number of
Eric> nontech net users will double within a year. The demand for
Eric> ba...nontech will surge..
Eric> I think the only question is the name of the newsgroup. nontech
Eric> is clear enough. On behalf of poli-sci majors everywhere, I cast
Eric> my vote in favor of .nontech!
Look, enough of this already. If the number of nontech net users does
grow as you say it will, fine. Then you can have your .nontech jobs
newsgroup. Until then, there is simply no need for it. Jobs aren't
going to magically appear there just becuase you create the newsgroup.
The traffic will be disappointingly low, and just becuase you don't like
having to wade through a bunch of stuff that is irrelevant to you does
not mean that the world has to change for you. Do you think that "tech
people" have any easier of a time wading through these newsgroups? Or
did you think any tech person can do any tech job? Get over it. Do you
hear computer people saying "lets split this up into
misc.jobs.offered.engineering, misc.jobs.offered.sysadmin, etc. ? You
simply can't make evrybody happy.
I'm not coming down on you personally, but I think a lot of people who
want this split have over-inflated expectations as to how it will affect
their job search. There are other sources besides the net, you know!
-rogt
Patrick Twohy
through the computer jobs looking for a noncomputer position that i might
be interested in. often i just don't bother. i suspect a lot of other
folks feel the same way.
so recruiters and other job posters may be wasting their time posting in
ba.jobs.offered if they're looking for nontech person.
otoh, if there were a nontech area, nontech employers and job seekers might
find it easier to make contact. we probably won't know unless we try it.
Oliver Kilroy Jr.
: [stuff deleted]
: [stuff deleted]
: : ba.jobs.offered.programming
: : ba.jobs.offered.engineering
: : ba.jobs.offered.contract
: : ba.jobs.offered.nontech
Thanks for the comment. There is indeed frequent cross posting in the
Classified section of the newspaper. Is this too great a cost?
At what point should b.j.o split?
Do you have any stats on bay area usage. Hypothosize
3mil ba population (SF,SJ and oakland are all over 1mil)
10 % on the net - just a guess
--------
300,000 ba users
.25% non technical users (include sales and marketing types)
-------
75,000 computer literate non technical people on the net
What about the chicken and egg argument? More postings, more seekers? How
many are nontech seekers?
Note I have recieced several business cards from nontech people like
admin assistants, HR, Marketing and Sales types with net handles. I also
see several news groups like law etc that may be non tech folks. What
about all of the students.
Oliver Kilroy Jr.
: : : ba.jobs.offered.nontech
: -Eric Davis
: er...@uclink.berkeley.edu
Thanks for your comment. Just to make sure nontech is clear enough what
types of jobs should go into this group?
Oliver Kilroy Jr.
: > Any thoughts?
Thanks for your comment. I gather you think we shouldn't try? I note that
ba.jobs.misc has several times the traffic that ba.jobs.offered has.
Should a few well intentioned mispostings kill a plan?
Oliver Kilroy Jr.
this thread.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WANTED AND THERE IS A CONTINUING DISCUSSION ON
ba.jobs.misc and ba.news.config
Oliver Kilroy Jr.
: Two points.
: It's got nothing to do with a job offering, so I removed *jobs.offered.
: Set Followups appropriately, so people who post followups to subsequent other
: posts should remove the irrelevant groups. Otherwise you tag yourself
: to potential employers (negatively).
Thanks for the hint. I posted to this board becuse the guidelines I read
on USENET reorganizations indicated that all USENET groups affected
should be posted. See How_to_Create_a_New_Usenet_Newsgroup, its companion
and the changes file. Note I placed a comment in the thread asking
subsequent posters to remove everything but ba.jobs.misc and
ba.news.config. (My sysop here locally indicated that this was a proper
forum).
: I'm leading a bunch of people who are reorganizing misc.jobs.*.
: The structure we are going to use hasn't been decided yet, because we
: have to follow Usenet voting procedures, and we have decided to do this
: best in two stages (implying it's going to take four months).
: Proceed with your discussion, but note that the wider ranging net probably
: isn't going to look like a larger version of ba.jobs.*.
: I'm not telling you to wait, I'm just letting you know that ba.jobs' parent
: is changing, too.
Thanks for the input. Would you post the most relevant category
suggestions here.
: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eug...@orville.nas.nasa.gov
: One of the FAQ maintainers to m.j.*
: Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
: {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
: My 2nd favorite use of a flame thrower is the remake of "The Thing."
: A Ref: Uncommon Sense, Alan Cromer, Oxford Univ. Press, 1993.
Oliver Kilroy Jr.
: Look, enough of this already. If the number of nontech net users does
: grow as you say it will, fine. Then you can have your .nontech jobs
: newsgroup. Until then, there is simply no need for it. Jobs aren't
: going to magically appear there just becuase you create the newsgroup.
: The traffic will be disappointingly low, and just becuase you don't like
: having to wade through a bunch of stuff that is irrelevant to you does
: not mean that the world has to change for you. Do you think that "tech
: people" have any easier of a time wading through these newsgroups? Or
: did you think any tech person can do any tech job? Get over it. Do you
: hear computer people saying "lets split this up into
: misc.jobs.offered.engineering, misc.jobs.offered.sysadmin, etc. ? You
: simply can't make evrybody happy.
: I'm not coming down on you personally, but I think a lot of people who
: want this split have over-inflated expectations as to how it will affect
: their job search. There are other sources besides the net, you know!
I have at least one private eMail response from an HR type that their
company is willing to post the nontech type jobs and would like to see
the categories split similar to the newspapers.
Am asking that company to start posting the nontech jobs now.
Oliver Kilroy Jr.
: I would love to see more non-programmer, non-engineer stuff
: available on these groups. However, I don't think a new
: group is the answer.
Are you in a position to start posting such jobs for Synopsys? If so why
not start now?
: If certain recruiters would refrain from posting THE SAME 10 JOBS
: EVERY FRIGGIN DAY. The traffic wouldn't be so bad. Recommending
: some kind of header format so we could use KILL files on certain
: kinds of postings would be helpful too, although I don't know
: how we'd enforce compliance...
Your suggestions would be most appreciated.
: --
: Julie Lewis j...@synopsys.com I speak for myself, not for Synopsys.
: Did I say that?
Thanks.
Ted Lemon
> If certain recruiters would refrain from posting THE SAME 10 JOBS
> EVERY FRIGGIN DAY. The traffic wouldn't be so bad. Recommending
> some kind of header format so we could use KILL files on certain
> kinds of postings would be helpful too, although I don't know
> how we'd enforce compliance...
Well, I wouldn't put it quite so strongly, but I certainly agree with
the notion. I think it would be sufficient if recruiters assigned
each listing a code and put that code in a well-known header - e.g.:
From: Joe Recruiter <jr...@fnord.narf.com>
X-Job-ID: 1023.jrec
Subject: Compiler Weenie needed, Daly City, SF Bay, contract
Of course, I gratuitously added another pet peeve of mine - people say
things like ``SF Bay Area'' in subject lines. I want to know what
town it's in, not just what 100-mile radius - if it's not nearby, I
don't want to waste my time reading the posting.
I've noticed a couple of people who do consistently say what town the
job opportunity is in, and I applaud them. I wish others would
follow suit.
_MelloN_
--
mel...@ncd.com uunet!lupine!mellon
Member of the League for Programming Freedom. To find out how software
patents may cost you your right to program, contact l...@uunet.uu.net
John Lazzaro
> Should a few well intentioned mispostings kill a plan?
I think any attempt to make more specialized groups will be thwarted
by a subset of recruiters who will ignore all the boundaries and post
everywhere, and ignore requests to change their behavior. Mini-SPAMs
in the Cantor and Seigel tradition. On the bright side, it does make
clear that C&S's sin was behavior, not commercialism -- all job ads
are commercial speech, but putting them in ba.jobs.offered is
appropriate behavior, and putting them in ba.jobs.misc is
inappropriate behavior. Unless there is the will to enforce new
ba.jobs* specializations through traditional moderation or forged
cancels (the former is a full-time mindlessly boring job, the latter
is very controversial) I think the plan is doomed -- but feel free to
try anyways :-)
Eugene, any thoughts on how avoiding recruiter mini-SPAMs will
influence the misc.jobs.* reorg? Maybe we can apply these techniques
here too ...
Eugene N. Miya
laz...@wheeze.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) writes:
>Eugene, any thoughts on how avoiding recruiter mini-SPAMs will
>influence the misc.jobs.* reorg? Maybe we can apply these techniques
>here too ...
I was just scanning (surfing) when I found your post. I normally
don't read b.j.m.
The only way you can avoid this problem is a full time human moderator.
And then some, since you can fool a person.
The m.j.* proposal will involve a consensus arrived Robomoderation scheme
based on a computer somewhere which will egrep headers and articles.
Steve and I don't expect it to be perfect at the start. Anyone can
forge headers (exercise left to readers). Also there is a segment of
the net which is moderation opposed and so the vote of that aspect
of the proposal is necessary in a straw poll. The point is that it's
easy to circumvent anything like this. In recent days, I've had some
of the "recruiter" problem explained to me. It's not an easy problem.
As Steve wants me to place in the RFD, "Killfiles" are an expected tool
of the net user.
I've always thought b.j.* was slightly inconsistent, since the
original proposal left out a b.j.resumes. So much for consistency.
Who know's, maybe we will end up following a b.j.* split. Our process
unfortunately will take longer to do.
"Somewhere a crime is being committed...."
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eug...@orville.nas.nasa.gov
Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
and OCP representative
Jonathan Loh
> ba.jobs.offered.programming
> ba.jobs.offered.engineering
> ba.jobs.offered.contract
> ba.jobs.offered.nontech
>
>splitting ba.jobs.offered into three. Think about adding nontech as a
>minimum.
>
Then in each subcategory we can split them up into temporary and
permanent, specialties, etc...
It may seem more unwieldly at first. but that's because the
majority of people who use the jobs newsgroup are scientists.
But that's only because we're the only ones who've been on the internet
the longest. Now there are millions of more people screaming to get on
from all walks of life - business, coffee houses (SFNet), local BBS's
etc.... and many of these people are not scientists.
--
Jonathan
jl...@futon.sfsu.edu
**** Please quote from this message when responding --- Thanks!
Bob MacDowell
"Oliver Kilroy Jr." <oki...@rahul.net> writes:
>There is a mixture of technical, non technical and contract jobs posted
>on ba.jobs.offered with the preponderance being full time technical
>positions.
Which sounds like the demographic of both Usenet posters and readers.
I don't see this as surprising.
>Would adding a group ba.jobs.offered.nontech
> attract more non technical postings?
> attract more non technical job seekers?
If we can convince the posters to use it. My experience, giving guidance
to the people posting *technical* jobs, is that most of them *barely*
know what they are doing News-posting-wise. They know what they need and
that's about all, which makes sense. They're busy. We're the ones who
are technical, and hungry. And by plain number, most technical postings
come from a few people.
But most *non*-technical postings are going to be odd, this-and-that
jobs from hundreds of relatively inexperienced posters. They probably
aren't going to understand that there *is* a non-tech group, let alone
that they should use it.
> reduce the amount of irreleveant postings both technical and non
> technical users have to review?
More likely increase irrelevant postings, as the inexperienced posters
get flamed for posting it in the wrong place.
The gist of this entire proposal is to get other people to post according
to your rules... That usually doesn't work.
Lastly...
>Newsgroups: ba.news.config,ba.jobs.offered,ba.jobs.misc,ba.jobs.contract
>Followup-To: ba.news.config,ba.jobs.offered,ba.jobs.misc,ba.jobs.contract
DON'T POST NON-JOB-LISTINGS TO BA.JOBS.OFFERED!!!!!!!
ba.jobs.offered and .contract are for bona fide job listings ONLY.
The RFD was appropriate, but all the followups went here too!
Considering that the poster of the RFD was trying to improve the signal-noise
ratio, this oversight is particularly ironic.
And people who replied are the other half of the problem.
CHECK YOUR HEADERS, PEOPLE! Sheesh.
(Is your followup or reply to this article going where you want it to?)
You know, not everyone reads .offered online with a reader and kill files.
Some people read it at job clubs, printed out on paper. They DON'T want to
read your followups, though they are important.
-Bob