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.

[*mona lisa*]

Well, the moderators are going to interact a lot with the community, so shouldn't it be fair to allow the members to openly critique those who are applying?

He means that the applicants shouldn't be allowed to comment on the other applicants.

Certain members that apply get lots of praise because they are good friends with the top 10-15 most active members of the community. members of the community, and other members aren't acknowledged at all.

Not true. What do you mean by not acknowledged at all? If you're talking about those that are active in the Resource Center, that statement would still be untrue. Perhaps it seems that certain members get more praise than others but if it's with good reason, what's the harm in publicly praising them? I'm sure it would be almost always obvious to the staff if an applicant is praised out of friendship and if he/she is praised based on qualifications.

Allowing applicants to openly critique another's application is definitely opening the door for biased and unfair opinions.

Is that completely the system's fault? I personally don't think so. Of course there is the possibility of members giving biased or unfair opinions but it works both ways. You have those who do just that and you have those who give their honest and unbiased opinions. If all members gave their honest and unbiased opinions, there wouldn't be any issues.

The staff definitely does need training after their hired. Every job has some sort of required training, why shouldn't CB have one?

What sort of "training"? There is a topic Backstage that lists general rules and guidelines for moderators to follow. It lists pretty much everything. But of course, a mod should use his/her best judgement in any situation. For that, a training period won't do much. If there are any questions, it's up to the newbie moderator to ask. But perhaps we could have a thread listing hypothetical situations and list what the best solution(s) would be.

Not that I'm completely opposed to having such a training period, but please stop constantly comparing CB to a real company. CB is definitely not trying to mock a real company. There are certain things that will and always will work and be done differently. If something is used by real companies but it doesn't seem to work well on CB, I don't think it should be used just because real companies/jobs do it.

The method you brought up wouldn't work as well as the current system does. Having been here long enough to have experienced and participated in the three types of methods (giving a yes, no, or neutral opinion on each applicant, nominations, and applications), it seems that this method works best for CB. At least at this point in time, anyway.

[*Uronacid*]

Is that completely the system's fault? I personally don't think so. Of course there is the possibility of members giving biased or unfair opinions but it works both ways. You have those who do just that and you have those who give their honest and unbiased opinions. If all members gave their honest and unbiased opinions, there wouldn't be any issues.

I would think that it would make the system more fair. If you are competing with someone for a specific position and you are critiquing that individual for the position that you are competing for, then your opinion is bound to be skewed due to the fact that you're both competing for the same position. If members have opinions and evaluations it's far less bias than that of an individual who is actual participating in the competition.

You can't rely on people to give unbiased and honest opinions because they're vision of that individual can be distorted by so many factors that don't relate to an applicants ability to do their job effectively. Therefore you need to fine tune the system to get the best results. Think of the system as a filter. It won't filter out everything, but it will filter a lot of the garbage.

^For the whole training period. I don't really see it all that nesscary for the people staff, I think you need to use your best judgement for that position. But I think the training session could be extremely useful for the design positions. The whole accepting and rejecting items throughout the admin cp. knowing what exactly could be written in the rejected letters and what could be the best thing. Also what needs to be done throughout the scripts and knowing what scripts are really nesscary and others that aren't so much. Also for graphics, someone needs to finish that one topic in the graphics that I hope you know what I'm talking about so it can also help at accepting and rejecting graphics.

Right, from my point of view people's staff seems like a baby sitting job... it's easy enough, and you could use FAQ to explain the details, the majority the job requires good soft skills. Members with design staff jobs on the other hand require technical (hard) skills that may need a training session.