I think you can probably fix the "REMOTE" issue, which makes it difficult for the hundreds of talented people looking for remote-only work and having to deal with this:
- "Sorry no remote"
- "REMOTE - No"
- "remote unavailable currently"
- etc.
The phrasing should change to:
REMOTE or ON-SITE
That way, from amongst even the coolest "Who is Hiring" sites, like this:
A number of employers consider "Remote" to mean come in to the office once a month, but many job seekers think of remote as live on the other side of the world.
Seconded. I'm about to start looking for people for a project that won't require them to be in our office, but which will require them to be physically present to attend client meetings with a week or two's notice. I'd probably be able to accept an intercity trip a coupe of times a month for that - I doubt I'd be able to get traction for a remote employee who'd need to arrange international travel to attend meetings.
As I mentioned on a related thread [ed:1], I'm partial to changing "plain text"-tags to "hash"-tags. #remote is easy to search for, and doesn't conflict with #no-remote. It doesn't require regexp/word-boundary checks etc. Also works with #remote-ok -- and I think you'd have to be very creative to mess it up (#remote-no?).
I'm happy to add ONSITE (probably best without a complicating hyphen?) but can't say I share your optimism about it fixing the inevitable issues with free-form text.
For the same reason, I think it's a lost cause trying to impose a machine-readable format on text fields, as many have been suggesting. There would be so many exceptions as to make the situation more complicated, not less.
Also, I agree about the free-form text issue, it's not something easy to overcome (especially when HN touts as "minimalist" - which I incur to mean "simple" too), so maybe you and the community should gently try to nudge posters that "No remote" in their messages just makes peoples lives a bit more difficult.
Lastly, I guess I'd just like to add that what made the "who is hiring" partly successful (IMO) was that it was simple. Too many rules and too much detail will turn posts into TL;DR .
> I think it's a lost cause trying to impose a machine-readable format on text fields, as many have been suggesting
I agree and personally I think HN hiring posts should avoid machine friendly formats anyways. I like to think this group is niche enough to allow the hiring individual to write a post and have it read by interested candidates. meaning no middle men/machines required. I', just a single user, but I don't find threads too large that a ctrl-f doesn't suffice for my needs.
Maybe it's just worth explicitly giving as a guideline in the post: "Please lead with the location of the position and include the keywords INTERN, REMOTE, or VISA if the corresponding sort of candidate is welcome. Please do NOT include any of the words "intern", "remote", or "visa" in your post if you are not interested in these candidates, e.g. rather than "no remote", say "local only"".
- "Sorry no remote"
- "REMOTE - No"
- "remote unavailable currently"
- etc.
The phrasing should change to:
REMOTE or ON-SITE
That way, from amongst even the coolest "Who is Hiring" sites, like this:
http://hnhiring.me/
Folks can finally filter out the non-remote work properly.