The hiring system on this site..., *sigh* Options

[*Uronacid*]

Intro

Alright, first off I'm not bitter about not being hired (even though no-one has been chosen... I'm pretty sure I won't be.). That is not why I'm posting this. I'm posting this so that hopefully, in the future, you guys (the staff) can learn how to avoid all the drama created by your current hiring process. Let's look at the current hiring process:

The CB Hiring Process

On CB we have "Hiring Sessions" this is how they work:

1. CB asks it's members to submit their applications via a public thread, so that all members can view the applications. Members read the applications, and then form biased opinions based upon their current relationship with each member.

2. CB then asks it's members (who do not make any decisions when it comes to the hiring process) to take part in a debate that's in the Lounge, were members inevitably end up bashing each other while trying to defend their reasons for a position on staff. A thread where people place words in others mouths and critique grammar/spelling, in a frantic effort to stomp on the heads of their competitors and gain "popularity" so that they have a better chance of being noticed by the "holy" staff. A passive-aggressive race where people try to act "polite" in an attempt make others look bad. This is a place where personal grudges create biased reviews, and the number of friends you have to back you up will effect how "right" or wrong you really are.

3. CB does this because they believe it will make the hiring process easier for them. Is it a "cream will rise to the top" theory, or is this Darwin's Theory - "survival of the fittest"?

Bad or Good?

Have you ever seen a company's staff post all their applicant's applications on a billboard in front of the company building for all to see, ask for all the applicants to debate and argue with each other over who should get the position, and then sit back and watch as people fight? Let me answer that for you. No, no you haven't, and the only place you will ever see people openly competing for a position like this is on "REALITY TV" shows like the apprentice (which as we all know, isn't very realistic).

There is a reason why real companies/organizations/groups/most websites(excluding CB) don't have hiring sessions like this. It's unfair to the applicants and it makes it more difficult to judge who should and shouldn't get hired.

It's unfair to the applicants. They get to have their applications torn to shreds by people with biased opinions of them. I'll even admit that I do it to. Why not, everyone else does it. IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT!! WE ARE ENCOURAGED TO DO IT!!

It's unfair to the Staff. It makes it more difficult for them to make a decision on who is going to get hired. With everyone yelling and screaming at each other, it becomes increasingly difficult for members of staff to decide who's good and who's bad for the position. All of our opinions of each other effect what they think of us. Eventually, a hiring session becomes a popularity contest when it shouldn't be.

Some Q and A

Q: Is CB a democracy?
A: No, for those of you who don't know, they pick and choose who will be hired back stage!

Q: Does it really matter what the members think?
A: Somewhat, a Staff member does need a good understanding of the community and its members, but considering majority of the posts made on this website are done by about 10-15 of it's members... what matters is that we do our jobs when one of us is hired on staff. If someone does a bad job, they can always fire them and hire a new staff member. There are unlimited members of this community just waiting to fill limited staff positions. Has CB ever heard of whats called a PROBATIONARY PERIOD? I guess not, I'll explain...

Probationary Period: Part of the selection process during which an employee new to a position is required to demonstrate fitness for the position by actual performance of the position's duties. Usually during the first couple of weeks that an employee is hired.

Q: Can't we just avoid all of this drama?
A: Yes, we can. We can avoid it, and make CB a more enjoyable environment for all!

HOW CAN WE AVOID THIS SHIT?!

- Applications should be submitted via PM.

- There shouldn't be "hiring sessions". You should be able to submit your application to an administrator at any time, they should store those applications in the back, and hire people when they need them. This would be much easier for the Staff, and there would be a lot less drama on the site.

- They should make a topic with a title like "How to become an CB Staff Member" that lists the positions, what is required for the position, if it needs to be filled, and a template for the application.

My thoughts, if anyone cares...

Should applicants be able to view another applicants application?
NO, for reasons stated above.

Should applicants be able to critique their competitors applications?
NO, for reasons stated above.

Should applicants be able to critique other applicants and give biased reviews, that effect the opinions of both the staff and members?
NO, for reasons stated above.




PS: If you find this offensive at all, I apologize. This is only constructive criticism.

[*I Shot JFK*]

Intro

Alright, first off I'm not bitter about not being hired (even though no-one has been chosen... I'm pretty sure I won't be.). That is not why I'm posting this. I'm posting this so that hopefully, in the future, you guys (the staff) can learn how to avoid all the drama created by your current hiring process. Let's look at the current hiring process:

The CB Hiring Process

On CB we have "Hiring Sessions" this is how they work:

1. CB asks it's members to submit their applications via a public thread, so that all members can view the applications. Members read the applications, and then form biased opinions based upon their current relationship with each member.

2. CB then asks it's members (who do not make any decisions when it comes to the hiring process) to take part in a debate that's in the Lounge, were members inevitably end up bashing each other while trying to defend their reasons for a position on staff. A thread where people place words in others mouths and critique grammar/spelling, in a frantic effort to stomp on the heads of their competitors and gain "popularity" so that they have a better chance of being noticed by the "holy" staff. A passive-aggressive race where people try to act "polite" in an attempt make others look bad. This is a place where personal grudges create biased reviews, and the number of friends you have to back you up will effect how "right" or wrong you really are.

3. CB does this because they believe it will make the hiring process easier for them. Is it a "cream will rise to the top" theory, or is this Darwin's Theory - "survival of the fittest"?

Bad or Good?

Have you ever seen a company's staff post all their applicant's applications on a billboard in front of the company building for all to see, ask for all the applicants to debate and argue with each other over who should get the position, and then sit back and watch as people fight? Let me answer that for you. No, no you haven't, and the only place you will ever see people openly competing for a position like this is on "REALITY TV" shows like the apprentice (which as we all know, isn't very realistic).

There is a reason why real companies/organizations/groups/most websites(excluding CB) don't have hiring sessions like this. It's unfair to the applicants and it makes it more difficult to judge who should and shouldn't get hired.

It's unfair to the applicants. They get to have their applications torn to shreds by people with biased opinions of them. I'll even admit that I do it to. Why not, everyone else does it. IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT!! WE ARE ENCOURAGED TO DO IT!!

It's unfair to the Staff. It makes it more difficult for them to make a decision on who is going to get hired. With everyone yelling and screaming at each other, it becomes increasingly difficult for members of staff to decide who's good and who's bad for the position. All of our opinions of each other effect what they think of us. Eventually, a hiring session becomes a popularity contest when it shouldn't be.

Some Q and A

Q: Is CB a democracy?
A: No, for those of you who don't know, they pick and choose who will be hired back stage!

Q: Does it really matter what the members think?
A: No, considering majority of the posts made on this website are done by about 10-15 of it's members... what matters is that we do our jobs when one of us is hired on staff. If someone does a bad job, they can always fire them and hire a new staff member. There are unlimited members of this community just waiting to fill limited staff positions. Has CB ever heard of whats called a PROBATIONARY PERIOD? I guess not, I'll explain...

Probationary Period: Part of the selection process during which an employee new to a position is required to demonstrate fitness for the position by actual performance of the position's duties. Usually during the first couple of weeks that an employee is hired.

Q: Can't we just avoid all of this drama?
A: Yes, we can. We can avoid it, and make CB a more enjoyable environment for all!

HOW CAN WE AVOID THIS SHIT?!

- Applications should be submitted via PM.

- There shouldn't be "hiring sessions". You should be able to submit your application to an administrator at any time, they should store those applications in the back, and hire people when they need them. This would be much easier for the Staff, and there would be a lot less drama on the site.

- They should make a topic with a title like "How to become an CB Staff Member" that lists the positions, what is required for the position, if it needs to be filled, and a template for the application.

My thoughts, if anyone cares...

Should applicants be able to view another applicants application?
NO, that's stupid.

Should applicants be able to critique their competitors applications?
NO, that's stupid.

Should applicants be able to critique other applicants and give biased reviews, that effect the opinions of both the staff and members?
NO, that's stupid.
PS: If you find this offensive at all, I apologize. This is only constructive criticism.

I fail to see the inevitability of this. In fact, this is the first hiring session where I've seen any real bashing. Fault of the members, not the system.


The reason why applications are posted publically is because this job involves a great deal of interaction with the members themselves. It is therefore essential that the moderators have the respect of the members. An unpopular mod will not be capable of leading, which is where the critique aspect comes into play. Likewise, i challenge the idea that member commentary makes it more difficult on the mods making the decision, as it provides insight into the community opinion, which,like it or not, is an important factor when determining an applicant's suitability. Furthermore, if an applicant IS bashing, then it is a display of their true colours, and can only help the mods to know what they are really like.

No, it is not usual for company's to make heir applications public, but Cb is not a company. It is a social network, which needs leaders who are respected and liked.

I will illustrate with an example from Cb's past, before the members' commentary thread was introduced. A member named Dani (not to be confused with Libertie) was appointed to People Staff, over many who were considered to be better candidates by the community. The direct result of this was the closest thing Cb has seen to a riot, and was swiftly followed by one of the biggest falings out between mods and members ever, the Cb Revolution. The reason for this was that mods refused to explain the motivations behind hiring Dani over others. Secrecy in Createblog hirings doesn't work.

Furthermore, the ability to accept criticism is an important part of being a mod, and the members' thread allows for potential mods to have this tested. If they can accept constructive criticism while applying, it is likely that they will be able to do so while on staff.

It absolutely does. A mod who is not respected and reasonably well-liked will not be sucessful, unless they are exceptional, and not all mods have been.

The hiring sessions aid with the transparency issu which i have already addressed. i would also observe that when Krista and Arjuna (I think it was you, please correct me if I'm wrong) were appointed to staff without a hiring session, it caused a great deal of commentary among members, as many could not understand why this had occured. Although Arjuna especially proved o be a strong mod, it could easily have not been the case, and resentment would have resulted.

I would define what you see as bias as honesty. If a member has constantly irritated the other members, or demonstrated immaturity, or whatever, and his/her application is not well recieved, that is not bias. It is honesty and experience talking. The members don't want this person on staff, and therefore will not like it if they are hired. Simple as that. The title is People Staff. Staff of the People. Therefore, the people need a say.

Oh, and i also agree with Kara about the potential consequences of applying whenever. If a member who would be a strong mod is not accpeted to staff because there are enough staffers, it could be interpreted as flat out rejection, and result in them not applying later on, when they would be needed.

Or, if their application was put 'on hold' as it were, their activity levels could fluctuate/they could no longer be interested, etc. The hiring session generates a burst of excitment, and get's current members and old members (witness the current range of applications) are drawn to apply.

[*Uronacid*]

How exactly is this survival of the fittest? The cream will rise to the top isn’t necessarily completely off the mark though. We’re talking about a hiring session here. We’re talking about finding those who are qualified, dedicated and wanting to do a good job for the sake of cB. Of course the cream will rise to the top.

Shouldn't you be able to see who is a qualified staff member is based upon interest that they show in the position and the way they act towards the community already?

Also, this process is less than easier for us. If we were to all get together and decide, without letting people decide for themselves whether or not they’d like to apply it would be immensely less difficult of a process. But that’s not how we work. We WANT you guys to have a chance and we WANT the community to have input because after all, the staff is here for the

What if the community wants to hire someone who is unqualified just because they are popular? What if what the "community" wants isn't even in the hiring thread. Less than 50% of the community posted in that thread. far far far less than 50%... how do you really know what the community wants?

Not a terrible idea, they do not have to be posted in-thread. However, it helps us as far as receiving input from the Community.

You have to understand that you aren't receiving input from the community. You are receiving input from 50-60 members of the community... about 33% of those members are applying for staff... you call that the community?

First off, I’d like to know exactly why it is you think you know exactly what it is happening backstage. But that’s a whole other discussion.

How else could it be done? Tell me... do you role a twenty sided die and give each applicant a number? Do the members have a voting thread that I don't know about? C'mon, if you haven't figured this out yet then you are either new to the site or completely ignorant.

No, we really shouldn’t. We don't like having quick turn arounds and this is a way to help avoid that as much as possible. Also, it's refreshing this way to have a influx of new staffers, get them used to being a staffer. It helps them all grow together and helps us form a more solid moderator team.

At least we agree on the "no" part... the rest is questionable.

Also, hiring is not a wham bam you're hired and thank you ma'am type of process. We simply wouldn't have the time to keep it up.

I never thought it was, and if I gave you that idea.. I'm sorry.

There is a thread that lists the moderator functions, one could easily go there. I’ll find the link in a sec. I don’t believe in templates. This is first and foremost a blogging site and you guys should be well beyond the creativity of just following a template. Use your own mind, tell us in your owns words why you believe you are the one for the job.

Yes, there is but it isn't the same thing that I'm talking about. Templates are only a way to organize, if you don't believe in them you will be severely disappointed if ever you are trying to organize data (I work for a market research company... if we didn't have templates I would go absolutely insane organizing respondents results). This, "Use your own mind, tell us in your owns words why you believe you are the one for the job." could be a question on that template.

Again, why the “NO, that’s stupid.” remark? That just isn’t a good way to communicate. It isn’t at all stupid, you just simply don’t agree with our methods.

No need to apologize for having opinions. :)

I agree it's not a good way to communicate... but I have elaborated upon each one of those questions within the post.

[b]Honey, why oh why are you cussing when you’ve sent me PMs complaining about others doing do so AND complain about being warned because you don’t? I’m not bashing, I’m asking.[b]
I wasn't cussing at anyone in particular.

I fail to see the inevitability of this. In fact, this is the first hiring session where I've seen any real bashing. Fault of the members, not the system.


The reason why applications are posted publically is because this job involves a great deal of interaction with the members themselves. It is therefore essential that the moderators have the respect of the members. An unpopular mod will not be capable of leading, which is where the critique aspect comes into play. Likewise, i challenge the idea that member commentary makes it more difficult on the mods making the decision, as it provides insight into the community opinion, which,like it or not, is an important factor when determining an applicant's suitability. Furthermore, if an applicant IS bashing, then it is a display of their true colours, and can only help the mods to know what they are really like.

No, it is not usual for company's to make heir applications public, but Cb is not a company. It is a social network, which needs leaders who are respected and liked.

I will illustrate with an example from Cb's past, before the members' commentary thread was introduced. A member named Dani (not to be confused with Libertie) was appointed to People Staff, over many who were considered to be better candidates by the community. The direct result of this was the closest thing Cb has seen to a riot, and was swiftly followed by one of the biggest falings out between mods and members ever, the Cb Revolution. The reason for this was that mods refused to explain the motivations behind hiring Dani over others. Secrecy in Createblog hirings doesn't work.

Furthermore, the ability to accept criticism is an important part of being a mod, and the members' thread allows for potential mods to have this tested. If they can accept constructive criticism while applying, it is likely that they will be able to do so while on staff.

It absolutely does. A mod who is not respected and reasonably well-liked will not be sucessful, unless they are exceptional, and not all mods have been.

The hiring sessions aid with the transparency issu which i have already addressed. i would also observe that when Krista and Arjuna (I think it was you, please correct me if I'm wrong) were appointed to staff without a hiring session, it caused a great deal of commentary among members, as many could not understand why this had occured. Although Arjuna especially proved o be a strong mod, it could easily have not been the case, and resentment would have resulted.

I would define what you see as bias as honesty. If a member has constantly irritated the other members, or demonstrated immaturity, or whatever, and his/her application is not well recieved, that is not bias. It is honesty and experience talking. The members don't want this person on staff, and therefore will not like it if they are hired. Simple as that. The title is People Staff. Staff of the People. Therefore, the people need a say.

Oh, and i also agree with Kara about the potential consequences of applying whenever. If a member who would be a strong mod is not accpeted to staff because there are enough staffers, it could be interpreted as flat out rejection, and result in them not applying later on, when they would be needed.

Or, if their application was put 'on hold' as it were, their activity levels could fluctuate/they could no longer be interested, etc. The hiring session generates a burst of excitment, and get's current members and old members (witness the current range of applications) are drawn to apply.

Well, as far as I know I have seen bashing in every hiring session. This one more than others. It is the system. This system is just begging for members to duke it out.



It is good to have members who are well liked on people staff, but when you think about it. It really doesn't matter. As long as they do their job, and do it well. I don't understand why there should be such an uproar. Did you participate in the "riot", or CB revolution?

I personally see mods being friends with the members as a stumbling block. If they are the friends of members in the community, and those friends break the rules will they be punished fairly and equally? Probably not, favoritism exists people... if I'm friends with a mod I will be able to get away with a lot more on this site than if I am not. It's to bad, but it's not their fault. People just aren't simply able to keep things strictly business when a friendship is involved.

Also, you should be able to tell if a member is mature enough to handle a position due to the nature of his posts prior to being hired on staff. You shouldn't need to create a topic where people tear each other to shreds and call it "constructive criticism". If the member hasn't been on long enough, then that's their problem.

It does matter to a certain extent what the members think. I will edit this right away.

But at the same time, the only reason you should hire someone to be a mod is if they are exceptional. Why settle for anything less. I would say it's definitely important for a mod on peoples staff to have a solid understanding of the community, therefore they must be well known. The staff members on this site aren't blind, they see everything that goes on, and in general they know how popular/unpopular a member is before they submit an application.

Members of design staff on the other hand don't really need good soft skills, nor do they need to be popular. They can get by on their knowledge of coding layouts or graphics. Their job generally consists of accepting/rejecting submissions while helping members of the community achieve what they are trying to accomplish in a layout or graphic that they are attempting to create.

I don't think I'm clearly understanding this... I'm just hoping you will rephrase it so I can. If not I hope I addressed this in the things that I said above.

I also see her point, but there are so many things you can do to prevent that from happening I could give you a simple idea of what I would suggest:

Situation:

a. a strong mod is not accepted to staff because there are enough staffers.
Have a thread stating the currently available positions that need to be filled, and reply to applicants that make a request for a job that is no longer available telling them that they need to check the "Hiring Thread" for available positions.

b. Or, if their application was put 'on hold' as it were, their activity levels could fluctuate/they could no longer be interested, etc.
You have to reply to the applicants. If you don't this will inevitably happen. This is all part of the hiring process.

[*I Shot JFK*]

Shouldn't you be able to see who is a qualified staff member is based upon interest that they show in the position and the way they act towards the community already?
What if the community wants to hire someone who is unqualified just because they are popular? What if what the "community" wants isn't even in the hiring thread. Less than 50% of the community posted in that thread. far far far less than 50%... how do you really know what the community wants?
You have to understand that you aren't receiving input from the community. You are receiving input from 50-60 members of the community... about 33% of those members are applying for staff... you call that the community?
How else could it be done? Tell me... do you role a twenty sided die and give each applicant a number? Do the members have a voting thread that I don't know about? C'mon, if you haven't figured this out yet then you are either new to the site or completely ignorant.
At least we agree on the "no" part... the rest is questionable.
I never thought it was, and if I gave you that idea.. I'm sorry.
Yes, there is but it isn't the same thing that I'm talking about. Templates are only a way to organize, if you don't believe in them you will be severely disappointed if ever you are trying to organize data (I work for a market research company... if we didn't have templates I would go absolutely insane organizing respondents results). This, "Use your own mind, tell us in your owns words why you believe you are the one for the job." could be a question on that template.
I agree it's not a good way to communicate... but I have elaborated upon each one of those questions within the post.

Honey, why oh why are you cussing when you’ve sent me PMs complaining about others doing do so AND complain about being warned because you don’t? I’m not bashing, I’m asking.[b]
I wasn't cussing at anyone in particular.
Well, as far as I know I have seen bashing in every hiring session. This one more than others. It is the system. [b]This system is just begging for members to duke it out.



It is good to have members who are well liked on people staff, but when you think about it. It really doesn't matter. As long as they do their job, and do it well. I don't understand why there should be such an uproar. Did you participate in the "riot", or CB revolution?

I personally see mods being friends with the members as a stumbling block. If they are the friends of members in the community, and those friends break the rules will they be punished fairly and equally? Probably not, favoritism exists people... if I'm friends with a mod I will be able to get away with a lot more on this site than if I am not. It's to bad, but it's not their fault. People just aren't simply able to keep things strictly business when a friendship is involved.

Also, you should be able to tell if a member is mature enough to handle a position due to the nature of his posts prior to being hired on staff. You shouldn't need to create a topic where people tear each other to shreds and call it "constructive criticism". If the member hasn't been on long enough, then that's their problem.

It does matter to a certain extent what the members think. I will edit this right away.

But at the same time, the only reason you should hire someone to be a mod is if they are exceptional. Why settle for anything less. I would say it's definitely important for a mod on peoples staff to have a solid understanding of the community, therefore they must be well known. The staff members on this site aren't blind, they see everything that goes on, and in general they know how popular/unpopular a member is before they submit an application.

Members of design staff on the other hand don't really need good soft skills, nor do they need to be popular. They can get by on their knowledge of coding layouts or graphics. Their job generally consists of accepting/rejecting submissions while helping members of the community achieve what they are trying to accomplish in a layout or graphic that they are attempting to create.

I don't think I'm clearly understanding this... I'm just hoping you will rephrase it so I can. If not I hope I addressed this in the things that I said above.

I also see her point, but there are so many things you can do to prevent that from happening I could give you a simple idea of what I would suggest:

Situation:

a. a strong mod is not accepted to staff because there are enough staffers.
Have a thread stating the currently available positions that need to be filled, and reply to applicants that make a request for a job that is no longer available telling them that they need to check the "Hiring Thread" for available positions.

b. Or, if their application was put 'on hold' as it were, their activity levels could fluctuate/they could no longer be interested, etc.
You have to reply to the applicants. If you don't this will inevitably happen. This is all part of the hiring process.

No. The system is begging to be used ocnstructively. there will always be idiots who use it to bash. That is NOT the fault of the system.

Other variations have failed in the past. This has proven efective.

[*Uronacid*]

No. The system is begging to be used ocnstructively. there will always be idiots who use it to bash. That is NOT the fault of the system.

Other variations have failed in the past. This has proven efective.

Variations of the same system? It hasn't been "proven" more effective than other systems...saying that leead me to question...

How many hiring systems has CB had?

How did they function?

When a system is put into affect, you have to follow the norms that come with it. From my understanding, it seems as if a system was in affect and few of the staff members didn't abide by it. The results were disasterous, and the leak of information sparked the CB revolution. Did the staff follow the system to ensure that it was effective (if things needed to be kept a secret, were they?)?

Alot of the replies have had to do with how secrecy doesn't work on CB? If there are to be no secrets on CB then why do the staff members have a "backstage" forum?

I'm not saying the current one doesn't work, but I am saying that there is deffinitly a better way. I believe that the staff is capable of better, and that's why I'm submitting this post.