×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Browser Choice May Affect Your Job Prospects

Soulskill posted 1 year,12 days | from the good-god,-this-applicant-is-using-Lynx dept.

Firefox 374

krygny sends this quote from The Economist: "The internet browser you are using to read this blog post could help a potential employer decide whether or not you would do well at a job. How might your choice of browser affect your job prospects? When choosing among job applicants, employers may be swayed by a range of factors, knowingly and unknowingly. ... Evolv, a company that monitors recruitment and workplace data, has suggested that there are better ways to identify the right candidate for job. ... Among other things, its analysis found that those applicants who have bothered to install new web browsers on their computers (such as Mozilla's Firefox or Google's Chrome) perform better and stay in their posts for 15% longer, on average."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

374 comments

Loaded language? (0)

TheRaven64 (641858) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431259)

Among other things, its analysis found that those applicants who have bothered to install new web browsers on their computers (such as Mozilla's Firefox or Google's Chrome)

You can't judge that, all you can judge is which browser people are using. I'm using Safari on Mac, but I have Chrome (and the Dart version) FireFox, and Opera installed. None of them integrate properly with the system toolchain, none has the nice command-number shortcuts for the bookmarks bar, and all have other UI quirks that annoy me (although Safari's integration of the address and search bars is really pissing me off, as it keeps autocompleting search terms to random URLs).

Re:Loaded language? (4, Insightful)

danbob999 (2490674) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431295)

Did you really feel you had to defend yourself?

Re:Loaded language? (1, Interesting)

NickGnome (1073080) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431379)

"Did you really feel you had to defend yourself?"
...

Yes, because this is another transparent attempt to find pretexts on which to declare all US job appplicants to be "unqualified".

Re:Loaded language? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431395)

"Did you really feel you had to defend yourself?" ...

Yes, because this is another transparent attempt to find pretexts on which to declare all US job appplicants to be "unqualified".

Save it for the interview .... if you get that far

Re:Loaded language? (5, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431451)

He won't... that's the point.

This is just another arbitrary way to "weed out" candidates. You wonder why the screeching that "the U.S. has no qualified candidates" to do jobs... this is one of the reasons. We have H.R. people that roundfile applications because of their own lack of knowledge.

Re:Loaded language? (4, Insightful)

RoboRay (735839) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431589)

You get 100+ qualified applicants for every job. Of course statistics are going to be used to narrow down the pool. If you share a characteristic with others that have a higher than average chance of being problematic, that is going to be a factor of whether or not you get considered for the position. If they do find another qualified candidate without any of those factors, it doesn't matter to them that you are also qualified. If they don't find another one, you're going to get a call anyway.

They simply do not have the time, opportunity, or justification to hold a magnifying glass up to every candidate that applies for a position. It's up to you to ensure that there are no silly reasons for them to discard you out of hand.

Re:Loaded language? (3, Insightful)

Shrike Valeo (2198124) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431743)

They simply do not have the time, opportunity, or justification...

THIS. THIS A THOUSAND TIMES

If someone doesn't know many employers use arbitrary methods to weed out hundreds, even thousands of applicants to something manageable that they can look at properly, they need to come back to reality

From a single typo to Times New Roman font, anything that has (and some have that no) statistical value (like, say, literally taking the second half of applicants and rejecting them), can and will be used. Only now I'm seeing companies use the "if you don't hear from us in X days, you were unsuccessful/ignored" in response to how bad it is you don't even get a 'no' these days

As long as applying will be as simple as emailing a CV/resumé/application and a human has to look at it for a response, there will be a huge bottleneck in business resources in responding to them and will do things like this

Re:Loaded language? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431877)

Except that it is not arbitrary.

Re:Loaded language? (1)

ron-l-j (1725874) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431867)

Interviewer: You know I really enjoy interviewing applicants for this management training course. (knock at door) Come in. (Stig enters) Ah. Come and sit down. Stig: Thank you. (he sits) Interviewer: (stares at him and starts writing) Would you mind just standing up again for one moment. (stands up) Take a seat. Stig: I'm sorry. Interviewer: Take a seat. (Stig does so) Ah! (writes again) Good morning. Stig: Good morning. Interviewer: Good morning. Stig: Good morning. Interviewer: (writes) Tell me why did you say 'good morning' when you know perfectly well that it's afternoon? Stig: Well, well, you said 'good morning'. Ha, ha. Interviewer: (shakes head) Good afternoon. Stig: Ah, good afternoon. Interviewer: Oh dear. (writes again) Good evening. Stig: ... Goodbye? Interviewer: Ha, ha. No. (rings small hand-bell) ... Aren't you going to ask me why I rang the bell? (rings bell again) Stig: Er why did you ring the bell? Interviewer: Why do you think I rang the bell? (shouts) Five, four, three, two, one, zero! Stig: Well, I, I...

Re:Loaded language? (1)

Clsid (564627) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431391)

He does have a point. Just because IE is the mother of all evils does not mean that the premise of the article is true in all cases. Having said that, the latest version of IE is not the spawn of satan as it used to be but more of a me too browser. And on the Mac, well Safari just has a better browsing experience in general.

Re:Loaded language? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431515)

Did you really feel you had to defend yourself?

Well, considering that the article is basically saying that anybody using IE should have their resume tossed in the trash, and a good number of the resume submission sites for employers are all fucked up and only work properly in IE... ya, he did need to defend himself.

I run three browsers- Firefox, Chrome, and IE. I use each one in different situations, for different reasons.

in other words, fuck off.

Re:Loaded language? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431399)

how many are there Mac users?

Its mostly aimed at windows user most likely.
If you happy with IE under winXP - you are probably lazy to educate self, ignoring a lot of facts and dont have or dont listen to friends with IT background. It can all say something about you. All of that is negative. pretty simple, right?

Re:Loaded language? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431499)

And even if I bear with the buggy and slow default browser, it still means I'm a better candidate for some jobs: the hard shitty jobs with no benefits and bellow market pay - I will not shop arround for a better job because I don't know better jobs are available. Sounds like the perfect candidate runs IE6.

Re:Loaded language? (3, Insightful)

trum4n (982031) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431533)

I wouldn't hire you because you are a Mac user. I need people with morals and values, and a concept of the value of a dollar. Why would you buy what is effectively just a dell for 3x the money with near useless software? Not what I'm looking for.

Re:Loaded language? (0)

alen (225700) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431575)

find me a 13" laptop with multiple wifi antennas and photo editing software included for less than $1000

the metal case and better screen quality are just icing on the cake.

Re:Loaded language? (2)

RogueyWon (735973) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431649)

There's also the point that, in my opinion at least, IE has closed the gap with the other browsers quite a bit in recent years. I'd been using Firefox since 2004, but had grown increasingly irritated with a number of its quirks and foibles.

Got a new PC a couple of weeks ago and decided that was a good spur to check around and see how other browsers measured up. Having done so (and slightly through gritted teeth), I actually settled on IE.

Five years ago, somebody who was using IE was either ignorant or browsing from an office PC where they had no choice. I just don't think that's the case any more.

Re:Loaded language? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431733)

Wow the theory works! Stay away from Safari users because they're whiny, self-centered, no-it-alls!

Re:Loaded language? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431785)

Ditch the appliance and get a real computer.

Correlation is not causation (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431267)

Specifically, both being able to install a browser and staying in your job longer could easily be caused by a third factor, namely not being an idiot.

Re:Correlation is not causation (5, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431281)

Additionally, having 5 web browsers installed and triple-booting operating systems might mean you get board easily and won't stick around at the job as long. I mean, still being on IE6 does show incredible staying power and loyalty, right?

Re:Correlation is not causation (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431349)

NCSA Mosaic [illinois.edu] FTW.

If you can run it, you're proficient with running VMs as it won't run in a 64-bit OS.

Re:Correlation is not causation (3, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431419)

Specifically, both being able to install a browser and staying in your job longer could easily be caused by a third factor, namely not being an idiot.

You can't rule out a direct correlation - like staying in the same job makes you bored enough to start pissing about with different browsers

Re:Correlation is not causation (3, Insightful)

Brucelet (1857158) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431453)

Correlation doesn't need to imply causation for this to be relevant. It still means the employer is better off picking candidates who use a newer browser, and that job seekers are still better off using new browsers to signal that they're worthwhile, even if neither has causative evidence for why.

Re:Correlation is not causation (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431581)

if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

as someone below points out, correlation is more significant than causation in the real world.

Do we really want to eliminate all human judgment? (5, Interesting)

davide marney (231845) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431603)

From the article, "Collectively, such findings suggest that algorithms and analysis of "big data" can provide a powerful tool to help employers sift through job applications. They might also make things fairer, by taking the personal prejudices of recruiters out of the equation."

In other words, forget about applying individual judgment regarding the fitness of an applicant, let's use cookie-cutter search patterns instead. It'll be fine, you see, because it's done on "big" data, which everyone knows is way better than "little" data.

The idea that this somehow takes "personal prejudice" out of the process is just laughable, of course. Following this program would do just the opposite: set the one-size-fits-all personal prejudices of search pattern writers into concrete, and then amplify it 10,000 times over with the aid of a computer.

I am daily astounded by the tenacity of the idea that using a computer to do something somehow makes it less "personal".

Honest salesmen less effective (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431277)

From the article "A study of 20,000 workers showed that more honest people tend to perform better and stay at the job longer. For some reason, however, they make less effective salespeople."

Anybody surprised by this?

Re:Honest salesmen less effective (4, Funny)

Sentrion (964745) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431643)

Reminds me of a cartoon I saw once. It showed a hiring manager explaining to a rejected job applicant: "no, actually your resume is quite impressive. The accomplishments at your previous employers are quite remarkable, and your commitment to your community service projects is commendable. But we are really looking for an unscrupulous ass-kissing minion to fill this position".

Re:Honest salesmen less effective (2)

Rob the Bold (788862) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431737)

From the article "A study of 20,000 workers showed that more honest people tend to perform better and stay at the job longer. For some reason, however, they make less effective salespeople."

Anybody surprised by this?

Once upon a time, I was attempting to correct some misunderstandings a salesman had about a product I'd worked on, and he stopped me, saying that knowing the product too well would hamper his ability to sell it. I wasn't quite -- and I'm still not -- sure whether this was a dig at what he believed was poor product quality, or an admission that just making stuff up to please the customer worked better than the truth.

Either way, the company's long since out of business, so I'll probably never know.

Makes sense (0)

PerlPunk (548551) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431285)

Given that the population we are discussing are developers and other IT people, intuitively it makes sense because FF and Chrome provide all sorts of developer tools that you don't get with IE.

Re:Makes sense (4, Informative)

SQLGuru (980662) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431319)

Actually, the IE developer toolbar (F12) is as effective as FireBug and the Chrome developer tools. Chrome is the only one that shows local storage (Indexed DB, WebSQL, etc.) easily, but they all show the loaded files, the network timing, cookies, allow breakpoints, inspect CSS, etc. The developer tools were an add-on in early versions, but has been integrated since version 8 I think.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431435)

When I use Chrome, I can right click and inspect an element. How do I do that in IE?

DOM inspectors exist for other desktop browsers (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431457)

Anonymous Coward wrote:

When I use Chrome, I can right click and inspect an element. How do I do that in IE?

Google ie dom inspector revealed a whole bunch of add-ons that provide similar functionality.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431619)

When I use Chrome, I can right click and inspect an element. How do I do that in IE?

Push F12.

Re:Makes sense (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431741)

Chrome is the only one not named Safari or Opera showing local storage etc. easily, you mean ;) Safari has the menu with the boring name "Develop", and Opera has Dragonfly.

Re:Makes sense (1)

xmousex (661995) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431835)

"as effective as FireBug and the Chrome"

okay so i never figured out how to track ajax activity with IE toolbar the way firebug and chrome does. there is also nothing available for the toolbar that works like firephp does with firebug and chrome. Is this still the case? The data management applications i work on are nothing but a div fed with a stream of content and interactions from the server fed through ajax so its kind of important.

The last time i tried to use IE toolbar for this the most it would let me do is look at styling issues on the initial source loaded - that one div - and it was unaware of all the changes taking place in dom from minute to minute. Firebug and chrome are great for this sort of thing though i prefer firebug. But sometimes IE has quirks that i need to analyze. Would be nice if that toolbar could help.

And the one's who run IE (1, Funny)

mark_reh (2015546) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431289)

retire or are overdue for retirement...

Re:And the one's who run IE (1)

Chrisq (894406) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431429)

retire or are overdue for retirement...

You mean "And the one's who run IE6..."

Re:And the one's who run IE (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431545)

retire or are overdue for retirement

Not sure about that. People still using, say, IE6, browse obviously from work, ie from a retarded (literally) company - and since they want to leave, they're probably valuable candidates.

sure probably a correlation (3, Insightful)

shadowrat (1069614) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431293)

But now that this is out, people looking for jobs are all going to switch to firefox and chrome. They probably still won't have whatever quality makes them good at the job, but they will have lived up to the expectations of the HR algorithm.

Re:sure probably a correlation (2)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431437)

I had an economics professor once that wrote his thesis on using patterns to predict stock market trends. As he described it as soon as a pattern is recognized and published market investors jump on board, thus changing the parameters of the algorithm and ruining the pattern, which creates new trends.

Rinse and repeat.

Netscape (0)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431303)

What if I still use Netscape Navigator?

Re:Netscape -- (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431385)

Unless you mean Navigator 9 [wikipedia.org] , get back in your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Tub_Time_Machine [slashdot.org] >Hot Tub Time Machine and tell your past self to buy shares of Apple and NOT to buy any shares in Netscape. Oh, and Pets-dot-com will tank too, though that cute sock-puppet-doggie will live on. And hoard Hostess Twinkies: they'll stop making them someday!

Cloud Cakes (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431501)

get back in your Hot Tub Time Machine

But be careful not to set it to the 803rd millennium [wikipedia.org] unless you want Morlocks stealing your hot tub.

And hoard Hostess Twinkies: they'll stop making them someday!

But by that time, you'll be able to download Twinkies from the cloud [hiconsumption.com] .

And if you run Lynx (4, Funny)

Progman3K (515744) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431305)

They'll only hire you as a sysadmin

Re:And if you run Lynx (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431345)

I bet you still have to submit your resume as a .doc file, though.

Re:And if you run Lynx (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431593)

I bet you still have to submit your resume as a .doc file, though.

As a real SysAdmin, I have a emacs script that will export my resume as RTF with a .doc extension, and e-mail it.

Re:And if you run Lynx (1)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431361)

No because real sysadmins use curl.

Re:And if you run Lynx (1)

Chrisq (894406) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431439)

No because real sysadmins use curl.

mmm ... curl, vi and bash; the ideal browsing environment

Re:And if you run Lynx (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431461)

netcat

Re:And if you run Lynx (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431621)

Real sysadmins telnet to port 443

Evolv, a worthless pile of shit company (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431313)

Can I come in for an interview?

Employee of the Year (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431321)

Uses deliberately installed alternate OS

Using IE is bad for your job prospcts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431323)

Microsoft is now polluting meatspace?

Where's that Gates of Borg image?

Do you get extra points for multiple browsers (1)

youn (1516637) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431335)

most dev people have to do cross browser debugging so they install at least 4... do they get extra points?

Nobody ever got fired for... (make that "hired"!) (2)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431337)

Well, the saying is "Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft software" (which is a variant from the original "No-one gets fired for buying IBM software [technically.us] (alternate reference here [infoworld.com] ). That might have to be modified to reflect this new reality: "Nobody ever got hired if they're still buying [or running] Microsoft software" ! :>)
.
Or, as many other posters have pointed out, being able to replace the stock software installed on your computer means you've got some smarts at least. IMHO, installing a full GNU/Linux distro on your system must make you a genius (not that Apple "genius bar" kind of genius either!)

Re:Nobody ever got fired for... (make that "hired" (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431381)

Or, to an H.R. drone, unqualified because there isn't a "Microsoft" in there somewhere.

Yes... they think that way. If they can think this way because you don't use Office and DARE to send your resume out in PDF format, they can easily think this way about an Open Source distro.

I had a recruiter dress me down about this before. He had never heard of "Open Office" and I am not sure he had ever heard of Linux, either.

Re:Nobody ever got fired for... (make that "hired" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431537)

Honestly most of the HR people I have met seem to have come directly from the B Ship. HR is seemingly a position for those who cannot perform a useful function at a company, and don't understand the qualifications required for a job at that company.

subversive (3, Funny)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431359)

If your browser string looks like this:

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0

You're not a corporate believer and should never have a job... ever...

-- your typical H.R. idiot.

Re:subversive (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431387)

My browser string looks like "Lynx/2.8.7dev.9 libwww-FM/2.14 SSL-MM/1.4.1". What does that say? :P

Re:subversive (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431423)

Nothing. Because you couldn't have gotten your online application put into their proprietary system.

Re:subversive (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431553)

Nothing. Because you couldn't have gotten your online application put into their proprietary system.

Mod parent up. So many sites use IE-specific elements for their resume/application submission process that it's highly unlikely they will have ANY candidates who don't show an IE browser string.

The correct answer to "what browser do you use" is "Whichever one I need to get the job done". Fanboy love stories or hate spewing about any particular browser is the only thing that ought to throw up a red flag.

Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431375)

What about Opera? you insensitive clod!

for me its always depended (5, Funny)

nimbius (983462) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431389)

upon the type of work im doing. if i need access to a wiki article or something at work, netcat is fine. other times i might need to download the latest version of some software to test, so ill defer to curl (i understand its a resource hog, but im getting lazier as an admin in my old age.) One of the most frustrating things ive had to deal with at work however is sharepoint. Ive submitted several bug reports for the software but frankly, i cant get it to render properly in anything i use. even a full-featured monster like lynx cant handle it! For now ive worked around it by taking dd snapshots of the sharepoint san and parsing them using ed for the relevant articles.

Customer User Agents (1)

kramer2718 (598033) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431405)

And job candidates who customize their user agents are smart asses who will probably hack all of your systems.

Random much? (2)

Clsid (564627) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431425)

Why is it that in every field you always see a jackass like that coming up with totally unrelated methods to weed people out. Why not have them do the actual job you want and see how they perform. Even if you have too many applicants you can just have a first come, first serve policy, and based on the test of the first group, the best person gets the job.

Re:Random much? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431523)

Because companies no longer hire, train, and retain. They want people 'to hit the ground running'. Training costs money. It is cheaper to make the employee shoulder the burden. It is why H1B visa is so popular. You hire people who 'know what they are doing' and for a slightly lower cost and off load the 50 year old who wants you to 'follow process' and 'do things right'.

What *should* happen and what *does* happen are 2 different things. Once people realize that they can accommodate to that. Otherwise they will be bitter.

Until companies 'HTR' again you will see shenanigans like 'firefox filters' to 'weed out candidates'.

Re:Random much? (1)

Shrike Valeo (2198124) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431815)

Because companies no longer hire, train, and retain.

That doesnt' really explain it IMO.

If, say, I have a job. First 100 applicants get to trial it to give it a go. Some of their CVs have clear typos, a couple are 5 pages long, some use Comic Sans, Times New Roman... Considering these are clear no-nos on a CV, I would expect they don't know how to write one. If they don't, do they want the job? No. But I'm still here seeing if they can cope.

It would be a nice idea to have people after vetting to do the actual job, heck, it may be done in places, but to take people straight off without whittling out the cases of definite, pure, grade A trash, you're a money sink for the company

Re:Random much? (0, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431693)

Don't worry, they'll be smashed by lawsuits once someone discovers that these methods have a disparate impact on the African-American community.

Re:Random much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431715)

Why is it that in every field you always see a jackass like that coming up with totally unrelated methods to weed people out.

HR has long abandoned the idea of finding a good employee for any given position, it has all become about discarding the bad applicants. Unfortunately, their metrics of defining a "bad" applicant don't actually have anything to do with applicant knowledge, because HR has no idea what the job requirements actually mean. If 72% of applicants lie on their resume, they assume that all resumes are exaggerating equally and the honest applicant gets binned. If 22% of IE users have difficulty adapting to new things, they bin everyone who applied with an IE user agent string. If 31% of Hispanic women have anger issues, they look five times as hard for other excuses to bin those but are VERY careful not to point out the real reason they used.

And after all the filters go through, if you aren't a white woman from a western Chicago suburb who was educated in Princeton and claim to have 23 years of experience since graduating in 2005, you won't get a job.

Oh man. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431511)

What are we measuring here? Which browsers are best or whether people who care enough to take an extra step and fit themselves with the browser of their preference also care enough to do a better job?

They probably brush their teeth more often too and are more considerate lovers, if only of themselves.

I think we should be able to vote on what gets called a "study".

Re:Oh man. (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431675)

My guess is that they are measuring the adaptability / ability of decision-making from individual. A guy who only uses what is available, even when what is available is bad, is different from a guy who tries to change the bad situation to better.

And when you get the job... (4, Insightful)

6Yankee (597075) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431517)

...you find yourself stuck with IE6 on XP, and installing Firefox is a sackable offence.

I seriously disagree (4, Interesting)

slashmydots (2189826) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431535)

Anyone stupid enough to fall for browser advertising or co-installers has Chrome. Those people would NOT be allowed at my company. At my repair shop, 99% of people with Chrome claim they don't know how they got it. They usually also have a ton of malicious plugins in all browsers.

Based on Website (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431541)

So what about all the job sites that basically require IE in order for them not to lose your application at some random time? Does not putting up with their buggy software mean that you're less capable?

RMS style (1)

roman_mir (125474) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431563)

Ha, beat this [lwn.net] :

For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer. (I also have not net connection much of the time.) To look at page I send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me. It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.

And if they're using the Lynx browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431565)

Be sure to write him back, "Can you start Monday, Mr. Stallman?"

What about job seekers? (3, Interesting)

rnturn (11092) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431607)

Gosh, it's nice to know that my employer sees me as a good bet to stick around after I was hired. But I can remember having to resort to using my wife's Windows laptop to even apply for jobs at many companies because their damned web site would not render properly unless you used IE. I had found that company's jobs sites that employed a popular (*cough* Taleo *cough*) to run their job listings and application process were pretty bad with Firefox compatibility (making you re-enable all the add-on toys that many FF users turn off due to their annoyance factor and their security holes). The absolute worst, though, were the "homegrown" HR pages.

Aside: let's not even get into the requirement for a Word version of your resume when applying for a UNIX- or Linux-heavy position. Again, the wife's Windows laptop was handy since all the other computers in the house have been Microsoft-free for the last ten years or so. Saved me from having to schlepp over to the local public library with my resume on a USB drive just to make Word versions. The Word/Office files that are created from LibreOffice/OpenOffice are considerably larger than the same file created directly from MS-Word, sometimes larger than the company's upload limit. (Clever means of filtering out older, more experienced UNIX/Linux people with longer resumes?)

I can see this (2)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431633)

I know damn well I would never hire or keep someone if they insisted on using IE 6.

Also, I have no tolerance to work for a company that forces IE 6 on me, so chances are I would quit before they get around to firing me.

Re:I can see this (1)

MacTO (1161105) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431755)

Congratulations. You're fired, before you get around to quitting. Seriously. As an employee, your role is to do the job required with the resources provided. If you cannot do so, or choose not to do so, you have no place in the workforce.

(You are free to offer your input, but a refusal to comply with reasonable demands placed by your employer indicates that you are likely to present ongoing issues for your employer. Demanding that employees use IE6, particularly if it is restricted to internal networks and is necessary to run particular software, is certainly reasonable.)

working against themeselves (1)

KernelMuncher (989766) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431661)

I think it's prudent to use IE at most job sites. I've had difficulties in the past using Opera. The last thing a job applicant wants is to have the resume submission process go haywire because of a non-standard browser. Since company job boards are likely designed for IE, why not use it, especially if it reduces your chances for errors ?

Interesting... (1)

Sentrion (964745) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431687)

Considering that some of the most brilliant engineers I know still use some VERY antiquated technology and software, but have customized and adapted it over the years to integrate with newer technology to do things that no off-the-shelf software can do.

What about those who let others install stuff? (1)

Arrepiadd (688829) | 1 year,12 days | (#43431725)

"Among other things, its analysis found that those applicants who have bothered to install new web browsers on their computers"

How do they distinguish those who installed a new browser from those that let their boyfriends, brothers, friends, etc. install a new browser?

Re:What about those who let others install stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431855)

How do they distinguish between those who installed a new browser and those that let their girlfriends, sisters, mothers, or friends install a new browser? You couldn't have just said "between those who let someone else install it for them"? It had to be gendered?

In any case, who the hell cares? Have you ever tried to talk someone into using a new browser? The people who can be convinced to try something new and stick with it when it's superior can reasonably be argued to be the same type of people who might have installed a new browser if they'd understood what that meant or how to do it before someone talked to them about it.

If I am running Lynx... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431781)

Do I get to be CIO?

Cause and correlation (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#43431861)

I can correlate a bunch of different things, doesn't mean they have anything to do with each other. Hope nobody takes this seriously.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...