chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/08/85)
In article <1108@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) writes: >> Anyone else mildly annoyed/offended at finding the rash of headhunter >> ads from AA Personnel via "The Solution" posted to net.jobs? > >Traditionally, postings to net.jobs have been by or for *explicitly >named* companies. AA Personnel and "The Solution" are hiding that >information and are in fact using that resource without naming >who the position is with. I think I ought to point out that the Solution is (I believe) a timesharing system, and AA personnel a client. This implies, of course, that AA Personnel is paying cold cash for their access to the network and the postings they do. This also gives them a BETTER claim to do so than many, because they ARE directly supporting the costs of the network, rather than pretending that it is free. >I think it would *should* be an established "rule" that postings >to net.jobs give the Name of the company and a contact person. >Anything else should be considered as an ad and therefore a violation >of Usenet ethics. Rule? Usenet? Rule? (vicious, hysterical laughter.....) Lets create a rule-- no headhunters on the net. Lets create a rule-- Chuqui can't post any more. Lets create a rule-- No redheaded blue eyed Polish people with lefthanded traits can post the to the net in net.jokes on alternate Thursday. Better yet, lets TRY to enforce these rules. You can create rules as much as you want, but enforcement of these rules is another matter entirely. Every time someone has tried to do something to improve the quality of the network (Stargate, moderation, or whatever) a small but extremely dedicated group of people has jumped on any attempt at giving anyone responsibility as a fascist attempt at censorship. Usenet, and its people, seem to LOVE the laissez faire anarchy that exists out there. One disadvantage of this is the inability of anyone to keep anyone else from doing something, even if it is of great detriment to the group at large. If they want to do it, nothing in the world we can do can stop them. Period. If the Solution wants to sell CPU cycles to a firm that wants to post job listings, you can't stop them. If that firm wants to post job listing, you can't stop them. If they want to post them to net.general or net.unix-wizards or net.wobegon, you can't stop them. This is one of the BIG advantages of the net as it currently stands. If you want to do something, We (meaning the fascist upper management inner circle of Usenet dictators) can't stop you. But it also means that if someone else does something you don't like, you can't stop them, either. Bridges run both ways. As long as you want the advantages of a free and unrestricted network you have to also accept the limitations-- we all know these quite well-- innapropriate postings, endless duplications, useless banter, wild flaming, and other useful additions to our little group. Go ahead. Make rules. But I also suggest you look for ways of turning rules into policies. Without a rule maker or a rule enforcer, a rule is a very lonely thing. Chuq von rospach -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Life, the Universe, and lots of other stuff is a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (02/09/85)
> Rule? Usenet? Rule? (vicious, hysterical laughter.....) Lets create a > rule-- no headhunters on the net. Lets create a rule-- Chuqui can't post > any more. Lets create a rule-- No redheaded blue eyed Polish people with > lefthanded traits can post the to the net in net.jokes on alternate > Thursday. Better yet, lets TRY to enforce these rules. I'm afraid that Chuqui is suffering from advanced "stargate" sickness, so overwhelmed he is with the discussion over "freedom" that he's completely forgotten how the net has been run for the last few years. Why don't we just roll over and play dead while people post everything to net.general? Hell, why bother to comment at all on ANYONE's behavior on the net, geez, they can just continue to do anything they want anyway, so why waste the typing strokes? Luckily, there is such a thing as persuasion in the face of public sentiment. Luckily, there are individuals who have had the respect of the users of the network who, when they make a comment, are taken seriously. In this group I would count Mark Horton, and yes, even Chuqui (usually :-)) The network works AT ALL because usually people are glad to defer to intelligent advise. When enough people say "X isn't appropriate in net.Y" usually that sentiment wins out. To insist that the lack of statutory rules or effective sanctions prevents any kind of control over the behavior of sites on the network is simply untrue and flies in the face of our experience so far. I am sure that "The Solution" does not want to create bad will by allowing some of its users to flout the "rules" of net.jobs or whereever. That is, if there are any such "rules"--this isn't a discussion of the specifics of this case, but to remind Chuqui and others that we have had such rules operating successfully in many newsgroups: for example, no commercial ads in net.micro (due to forwarding onto the ARPAnet), no StarWars discussions in net.movies (that's what net.movies.sw is for). -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (02/09/85)
> Go ahead. Make rules. But I also suggest you look for ways of turning > rules into policies. Without a rule maker or a rule enforcer, a rule is a > very lonely thing. True. A method of enforcement is that the site become "non-gratia", and other sites may cut-off news to/from that site. Yes, I generally don't like those things, but by "rule" I meant some specific guideline by which a site may be cut off from netnews -- to my knowledge no such rule has ever been made. I have further decided that if it is OK for AA Personnel to post what clearly amounts to an ad for that company as long as they pay for it then we are opening a big can of worms. Usenet, as an advertising medium, would be QUITE valuable (look at the various markets: techie, Trekkie, yuppie, college, nerd...) and if the price you have for using this medium is whatever it costs you to timeshare -- well, I think that's underpriced. You're going to see a BUNCH of ads flood this network, because it's gonna cost them $1 of t/s time to post their 70-line ad to a network that reaches ~1500 sites (??? users). What if Bob's Big Boy gets a 68000 work station? Are we going to tolerate articles in net.misc on the Burger of the Week? What if Oleophone Records wants to post its record catalog to net.music? Admittedly, these are silly examples, but the idea is that, given access to Usenet, using the Net for advertising is so cheap that ANY company would exploit it as much as would be allowed. The reason such exploitation has not been seen so far is because I think almost all Usenet sites are fairly responsible in their collective use. And if they weren't so responsible you'd see them cut off the net fast. Is this not so? Perhaps AA and "The Solution" would voluntarily avoid posting such ads if they understood how some of us object to this practice? -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/09/85)
In article <1116@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) writes: >> Go ahead. Make rules. But I also suggest you look for ways of turning >> rules into policies. Without a rule maker or a rule enforcer, a rule is a >> very lonely thing. > >True. A method of enforcement is that the site become "non-gratia", >and other sites may cut-off news to/from that site. Yes, I >generally don't like those things, but by "rule" I meant some >specific guideline by which a site may be cut off from netnews >-- to my knowledge no such rule has ever been made. There is the basic reality that we have been unable to get sites to upgrade to B news, much less 2.10.2 (which is to their own advantage, fer goodnews sake). We simply have no power upon a site to do or not do anything, and that includes having them not ship news to another site. Because of this discussion, I resubscribed to net.general to see what was going on. Not to my suprise, of 20 messages on my system, 7, count them, seven, were 'test' messages. Last I heard, there was a specific guideline that posting 'test' messages to net.general was not to be done. The reason a specific guideline isn't made about cutting news off to a site is that it is unenforcable-- many, if not most, usenet connections are (or were) set up because two people at two sites knew each other. Since we don't have any way of enforcing a rule having a site cut another site off from news (how, by having their site cut them off? Infinitely recursive...) why make the rule? >I have further decided that if it is OK for AA Personnel to >post what clearly amounts to an ad for that company as long as >they pay for it then we are opening a big can of worms. I never said I thought this was OK. I don't, I find it irritating. But making rules is a silly thing to do when nobody listens to you. >The reason such exploitation has not been seen so far is because I think >almost all Usenet sites are fairly responsible in their collective >use. And if they weren't so responsible you'd see them cut >off the net fast. Is this not so? Actually, I think the reason is because of the peer pressure involved-- and the only real way of dealing with this problem under current and realistic circumstances. If someone on the net does something that you don't like, drop them a mail note and TELL them. If a company realizes that it is getting more bad vibes out there than good vibes, it will do something about it. If AA gets 2 responses says 'because of your postins I'll NEVER consider your firm' to every positive response then I'll bet they'll stop it. There are a few things to keep in mind when writing these kinds of letters though: do NOT be abusive-- calm, cool, and rational speaks, flaming gets ignored ('he's just a troublemaker, don't pay any attention'), and don't send massive numbers of letters. A single, intelligent letter of disrespect will do wonders. don't overwhelm the mailbox, and don't insult their intelligence (I'm speaking from experience here-- I've seen every type of letter I expect them to get, and I know what I do and don't read...). There is a basic problem I think we are going to have to face here. The character of the network is changing. It started out primarily as a cooperative set of Unix sites working together to make Unix better. These sites are now being overwhelmed by Unix users, sites that are based upon Unix, but aren't really involved IN Unix. This means that the kind of person reading the net is changing-- less technical or computer oriented, and less knowledgable or interested in the ramifications of their postings. They don't know about uucp, or uucp costs and overheads, multipoint networks, software overheads, and the like. They know personnel, marketing, scheduling, or whatever. This has the advantage that we will be able to use the net to find out greater varieties of things from a wider demographic of people, but it also means that we have users who are less aware of the problems the net has because they simply don't understand software. We are simply going to have to accept the fact that these users are going to 'screw up' (at least to our way of thinking) or find ways of helping them adapt. I think we'll end up doing both-- infusions of new blood is always good, because it takes us into areas we never would have thought of on our own, but we can only go so far unless we are able to radically restructure the way the net is put together and thinks. There are some of us who have been working on the latter on and off for a while, and have some ideas, but it tends to be really hard to get things done when you've got a responsibility but no authority to do it with... Coaxing and cajoling only go so far, and a single dingo like Frank Adrian can put months or years of work into oblivion with a single blow (for those that didn't follow it, he singlehandedly almost cancelled the Stargate project with a well timed and completely false flame). My personal feeling is that it is time to start seriously addressing what we think Usenet ought to look like and how to get it there. The structure we have worked great for 10 sites, or a hundred, or a thousand (maybe) but we estimate there are over 2000 sites (if you figure 10 users a site, that is 20000 readers) out there, and anarchy simply has inertial limits. The biggest worry I have is that the net is going to hit some critical limit and collapse like a black hole, and I'd like to avoid that if I can. Under existing circumstances all we can do is hope and pray for luck to be with us, but luck tends to be fickle. Anyway, I think the headhunter problem is really just a symptom. We can stamp out this occurence using peer pressure, but we have to realize we are treating a symptom. Others are going to try it, and more and more are going to get into the act when they realize they CAN get away with it merely by ignoring the rabble rousers. As long as Usenet is dedicated to anarchy, the anarchists are going to have to accept that fact that everyone lives by their own rules. If you want complete freedom of the net, everyone else gets it, too... chuq (here's to freedom-- may we not choke on it) Unix is a trademark of ATT Bell labs, last I looked. Chuq is a trademark of his parents. -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Life, the Universe, and lots of other stuff is a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs
sjl@amdahl.UUCP (Steve Langdon) (02/09/85)
> In article <2331@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (chuqui) writes: > > I think I ought to point out that the Solution is (I believe) a timesharing > system, and AA personnel a client. This implies, of course, that AA > Personnel is paying cold cash for their access to the network and > the postings they do. This also gives them a BETTER claim to do so than > many, because they ARE directly supporting the costs of the network, > rather than pretending that it is free. I think that you are struggling to make the point that you get to later in your posting. How many of the companies who are on the net are not "contributing" at least as much as AA Personnel? My reading of the maps suggests that the Solution is a leaf node, and as such is not one of the systems that is spending large amounts of resources to keep the net alive. > Rule? Usenet? Rule? (vicious, hysterical laughter.....) Lets create a > rule-- no headhunters on the net. Lets create a rule-- Chuqui can't post > any more. Lets create a rule-- No redheaded blue eyed Polish people with > lefthanded traits can post the to the net in net.jokes on alternate > Thursday. Better yet, lets TRY to enforce these rules. > > You can create rules as much as you want, but enforcement of these rules is > another matter entirely. > ... > BIG advantages of the net as it currently stands. If you want to do > something, We (meaning the fascist upper management inner circle of Usenet > dictators) can't stop you. But it also means that if someone else does > something you don't like, you can't stop them, either. > ... > Go ahead. Make rules. But I also suggest you look for ways of turning > rules into policies. Without a rule maker or a rule enforcer, a rule is a > very lonely thing. > > Chuq von rospach I think that we have now got to the substance of your posting, and reading it makes me rather sad. I detect signs of burnout from one of the more important contributors to the net. Please try and continue to be patient with the unfortunate negative side of uncensored communication. I also get frustrated at the amount of junk that I have to weed my way through to get at the gems available on the net. However, I feel that it is important that we continue to have the raw medium available. This does not mean that I support the rabid rantings we have seen recently (from Adrian etc.). In fact I support the existing moderated groups, and I am very enthusiastic about Stargate, even if, as seems likely, It will only be used for moderated traffic. This does not mean that the uncensored net is unimportant. Your reactions remind me of the ACLU supporters who left when the ACLU defended the Nazis marching in Skokie. While I abhor their views, they have the right to express them, and your committment to freedom of expression is suspect, if it only extends to people who share your views. Gordon is an articulate defender of the uncensored net. I do not believe that this disqualifies him from commenting on inappropriate use of the net. While general disapproval is unlikely to stop new users from posting "hello world" in net.general, it may discourage ongoing advertising. For example, the Solution might decide that the revenue received from customers willing to use the net in a non-commercial way exceeds that from AA Personnel. Sustained moral pressure may not be a very satisfying way of policing the net, but it is the only way to maintain the virtues of a unique forum. -- Stephen J. Langdon ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun,nsc}!amdahl!sjl [ The article above is not an official statement from any organization in the known universe. ]
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (02/10/85)
> There is the basic reality that we have been unable to get sites to upgrade > to B news, much less 2.10.2 (which is to their own advantage, fer goodnews > sake). We simply have no power upon a site to do or not do anything, and > that includes having them not ship news to another site. It is very simple, really. If "The Solution" becomes a conduit for advertising to Usenet, I will no longer allow their articles to pass thru here. This applies to any other site wishing to post advertisements (as opposed to press announcements or individuals' commercial transactions). Other sites can act as they want in this matter. If they feel I am wrong they can cut of news to me; if I is right then the goal has been accomplished. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/10/85)
In article <1119@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) writes: >> There is the basic reality that we have been unable to get sites to upgrade >> to B news, much less 2.10.2 (which is to their own advantage, fer goodnews >> sake). We simply have no power upon a site to do or not do anything, and >> that includes having them not ship news to another site. > >It is very simple, really. If "The Solution" becomes a conduit for >advertising to Usenet, I will no longer allow their articles to pass >thru here. This applies to any other site wishing to post advertisements >(as opposed to press announcements or individuals' commercial >transactions). Hmm.... I seem to remember that Qantel made the same comment about hercules after Frank Adrian's comments about Stagate, and got roundly beaten bloody for censorship. Isn't this also just another form of censorship, and why should we allow this and the precedents involved when we haven't allowed any previous restrictions of people's freedoms? chuq -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Life, the Universe, and lots of other stuff is a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs
ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (02/10/85)
Why don't we create net.jobs.hh ?
--
Norman Diamond
UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
"Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."stv@qantel.UUCP (Steve Vance@ex2499) (02/10/85)
In article <2340@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >In article <1119@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) writes: >>> ... etc etc.. >Hmm.... I seem to remember that Qantel made the same comment about hercules >after Frank Adrian's comments about Stagate, and got roundly beaten bloody >for censorship. Hey, wait a minute! A couple of articles with opposing viewpoints people posted is getting beaten? :-) Not in my concept of anarchy, it isn't! :-) Most of my mail was favorable, too. :-) Do you want me to mail you the changes you need to make to inews, Gordon? It seems a shame for me to have coded them for hercules, and then not needing to implement them. :-) (isn't news administration fun? :-) ) -- Steve Vance {dual,hplabs,intelca,nsc,proper}!qantel!stv Qantel Corporation, Hayward, CA
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/10/85)
Given that I am free, I am free to not like headhunter postings in net.jobs. Now there may be hundreds of folks out there who do like them -- but I don't know any. So, again, we are left with the problem of ``what to do with postings you don't like''. There are several approaches. If it only bugs you a bit, you can use your `n' key. If it bugs you a *lot*, you can send mail to the poster. I suspect that if the headhunters were innundated with ``DONT DO THIS -- WE DONT LIKE IT'' messages, they would stop. Of course, it would be a good idea to post a ``never-expiring'' article to net.jobs saying that we don't like it. If everyone who mailed Frank Adrian mailed the headhunters, they would get the idea. They would still be free to post articles, but would they consider it worth it? Of course, if we can't get people to complain, then I suppose that not very many people really mind the headhunters, and the minority are going to have to plead their case better. Somehow I don't think that this is the case here... Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
jpm@bnl.UUCP (John McNamee) (02/10/85)
> From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP > > I think I ought to point out that the Solution is (I believe) a timesharing > system, and AA personnel a client. This implies, of course, that AA > Personnel is paying cold cash for their access to the network and > the postings they do. This also gives them a BETTER claim to do so than > many, because they ARE directly supporting the costs of the network, > rather than pretending that it is free. Since when was sol1 a backbone site? I dont think they can honestly claim to be supporting the cost of the network. When this headhunting agency pays to post to Usenet, they are supporting the owners of "The Solution," not Usenet itself. They have no more claim to use Usenet for commercial purposes than anybody else. I agree with the rest of chuqui's article. There is nothing we can do to stop this headhunter, The Solution, or anybody else from abusing the net. The only way we are ever going to be able to control net abusers is to create /usr/lib/news/blacklist, containing names of sites and/or users whose articles should be sent to /dev/null rather than forwarded. This, of course, is a very bad idea open to a great deal of abuse. So we are stuck with headhunters posting 1E6 articles to net.jobs and there is nothing we can do about it. -- John McNamee ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl!jpm jpm@Bnl.Arpa
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (02/10/85)
From: nsc!amdahl!gam@seismo (gam) >It is very simple, really. If "The Solution" becomes a conduit for >advertising to Usenet, I will no longer allow their articles to pass >thru here. This applies to any other site wishing to post advertisements >(as opposed to press announcements or individuals' commercial >transactions). I'm not a news administrator (i.e. I don't know the news software). Is it possible with the current software (define that however you like; I'm thinking of 2.10 and 2.10.2) to pass on news without dumping it on your own machine? That would allow site administrators to pass on stuff they personally object to (so it still propegates through the rest of the net) while not taking up their own disk space or keeping something around they object to. I'd hate to stop getting a group because someone three links back cut it off in his own disgust (yes, I know: "Go find another feed..."). I mean, I can see people deciding that there's too much dreck in net.sources and cutting it off completely.... To help avert flames: I am *not* suggesting that someone go and write code to do this (I'm not trying to burden the folks who run this net). I *am* asking if the current software allows individual sites to discriminate in this way. -Dragon -- UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (02/11/85)
> >It is very simple, really. If "The Solution" becomes a conduit for > >advertising to Usenet, I will no longer allow their articles to pass > >thru here. This applies to any other site wishing to post advertisements > >(as opposed to press announcements or individuals' commercial > >transactions). > Hmm.... I seem to remember that Qantel made the same comment about hercules > after Frank Adrian's comments about Stagate, and got roundly beaten bloody > for censorship. Isn't this also just another form of censorship, and why > should we allow this and the precedents involved when we haven't allowed > any previous restrictions of people's freedoms? Yes, it is, but only if you can't tell the difference between an ad by a headhunter and a political opinion by a member of the Usenet community. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (02/11/85)
> > I think I ought to point out that the Solution is (I believe) a timesharing > system, and AA personnel a client. This implies, of course, that AA > Personnel is paying cold cash for their access to the network and > the postings they do. This also gives them a BETTER claim to do so than > many, because they ARE directly supporting the costs of the network, > rather than pretending that it is free. > Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse meeeeeeeeeeeeee. Justify this for me? How is AA directly supporting the costs of the network. Somehow I doubt it. What is "The Solution" doing with the money they get from AA for their postings? The Solution is a stub of the network off of Atlanta Cable Works. Other than their phone charges to akgua, are they supporting the network. Does flooding the network with articles support the network? DECVAX supports the network, The Solution is just going along for the ride and taking a profit. Since I worked hard to convince my employer that net news was an important enough asset to pay for and continually fight to keep it, am I not just as entitled to it as someone who is paying to log into a machine to use it? By the way...If the only thing that is keeping your employees working for you is the ignorance of other jobs, you probably aren't going to keep them that long anyway. This is the exact same stupid argument (sorry Ira) that we had at the UNIX meetings four years ago.
bob@sdcsvax.UUCP (Robert Hofkin) (02/11/85)
Well, as long as this net is anarchistic, we might as well take advantage. Anyone who is offended, send ONE POLITE mail message to the originator. Copy it to their root. I would not expect a single complaint to have much effect, but several dozen, hundred, or thousand are a rather strong voice. --bob
rmf@petfe.UUCP (Ralph M. Friedman) (02/11/85)
[] Your hysteria seems to be taking up more space than the postings that you are ranting about.
freed@dual.UUCP (Erik Freed) (02/11/85)
It seems to me that since so far I don't see any one harmed by the
present level of headhunter access to net.jobs, maybe the proper way
to handle this is to wait this out. Any action now is based only on
speculation as to the effect of this phenomena. Why don't we wait to
see if they become obnoxious. I don't know very much about how to restrict
access to the net but it seems like a lot of trouble for the present level
of the problem.
Erik Freed
Dual Systems Corp
Berkeley, Califsteiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (02/12/85)
*** Aren't there many students that use the net? Headhunters might be helpful to them. I have met many headhunters in my career and some of them are creeps and some of them are nice. One called me periodically for a few years and when a friend graduated from college (who I recommended as a UNIX expert) the headhunter spend weeks getting him job interviews and such. That sure beats the hell out of going to "recuitment day" and going to the tables signing up for interviews. After all, headhunters talk money. When I first started programming professionally I had no idea what the going rate was. I think that as long as the commercial stuff does not get out of hand (what is it now, 0.01% of the traffic?) it provides a useful service. If some company, say in Santa Cruz, offered a better environment and a better peice of the action than some big company, say in Santa Clara, and the big company does not want to let the wage slaves know about it for fear they would "follow the drinking gourd" to freedom, all they have to do it to add the entry: !net.jobs in their sys file. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 ihnp4!pesnta -\ 109 Torrey Pine Terr. fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ucbvax!twg -/
ritzenth@bgsuvax.UUCP (Phil Ritzenthaler) (02/12/85)
ENOUGH ALREADY ABOUT HEADHUNTERS ON NET.JOBS. If you have a discussion about
this, there are other nets more appropriate.
I am not saying that this discussion is not important, it is just that I look
at this net for jobs, not discussions or flaming.
Thanks
P. J. Ritzenthaler
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (02/12/85)
Geeez--weren't any of you guys alive in the '60's? You play the same game
you do with the people who barrage you with ads containing business-reply
cards or envelopes: give a bogus answer. Let them waste time figuring out
that they're getting a non-answer--THAT makes them pay for it.
Don't abuse the technique--you don't need to flame someone just because you
aren't interested--but when someone gets out of hand and/or won't pay
attention to a reasoned request, zing them via e-mail.
The advertising potential of the net is large--but so is the potential
response to offensive advertising; it cuts both ways. If people respond
when they're offended, the advertiser gets the idea quickly.
--
Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086
...Cerebus for dictator!hagouel@ittvax.UUCP (Jack Hagouel) (02/12/85)
[] > Your hysteria seems to be taking up more space than the postings that > you are ranting about. Ditto. -- Jack Hagouel ..!ittvax!hagouel (203) 929-7341
crs@lanl.ARPA (02/12/85)
> *** > > Aren't there many students that use the net? Headhunters > might be helpful to them. I have met many headhunters in my career > and some of them are creeps and some of them are nice. One called > me periodically for a few years and when a friend graduated from > college (who I recommended as a UNIX expert) the headhunter > spend weeks getting him job interviews and such. That sure beats > the hell out of going to "recuitment day" and going to the tables > signing up for interviews. After all, headhunters talk money. > When I first started programming professionally I had no > idea what the going rate was. > > I think that as long as the commercial stuff does not get > out of hand (what is it now, 0.01% of the traffic?) it provides > a useful service. One wonders if the traffic debating whether head hunters belong in net.jobs doesn't exceed the head hunter traffic. Charlie
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (02/13/85)
I don't see what all the fuss is about. net.jobs was created especially for "help wanted" and "job wanted" postings. These headhunters are using it for exactly that purpose. As long as it doesn't overflow into other groups like net.general, net.followup, and net.news, it shouldn't be bothering anybody. I am assuming that the headhunters are posting a relatively small volume of news to net.jobs. If the group starts showing up in the top 25 newsgroups, or if these postings are somehow qualitatively different from some company posting a "help wanted" notice to net.jobs directly, and this difference causes a problem for the people who read net.jobs, then perhaps it's time to talk (or at least to ignore the postings.) Now can we go on with our lives? Mark
west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) (02/13/85)
In article <933@dual.UUCP> freed@dual.UUCP (Erik Freed) writes: >It seems to me that since so far I don't see any one harmed by the >present level of headhunter access to net.jobs, maybe the proper way >to handle this is to wait this out. . . . I concur. Further, I fail to see essential (and meaningful) difference between net.jobs being flooded with headhunter postings (which hasn't happened yet), and net.books being flooded with pornography discussion (which did happen). From the viewpoint of the uninterested netnews reader, it's just more articles to skip. From the viewpoint of those paying the bills, it's just kilobytes==dollars. Presumably, each phenomenon [headhunters, pornography] is of interest to some group of readers. If the flow of headhunter contributions becomes a deluge, the nature of "net.jobs" will change. Perhaps subgroups will form. But I don't see any a priori reason to pressure headhunters in particular to remove themselves from the net. I just ignore those articles anyway -- if no one pays attention, they'll stop posting. If they do get responses, doesn't that mean they have provided a useful service to a netnews reader? (Although the one I did read was so poorly written as to dissuade me from ever _looking_ at another one.) In any case, I don't think anything should be done until the volume of headhunter-postings approaches the volume of the discussions about the headhunter-postings. ;=) -- -- Larry West, UC San Diego, Institute for Cognitive Science -- UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west -- ARPA: west@NPRDC { NOT: <sdcsla!west@NPRDC> }
ron@men1.UUCP (Ron Flax) (02/13/85)
> One wonders if the traffic debating whether head hunters belong in > net.jobs doesn't exceed the head hunter traffic. > > Charlie Excellent point Charlie! Besides is it really worth all the Hoo Hah, or do you all just *need* something to FLAME about? ^^^^^ Ron@men1 (Ron Flax) MTACCS Engineering Network ..!{seismo,umcp-cs}!{prometh,cal-unix}!men1!ron "The opinions expressed herein are mine only if you agree with them."
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (02/13/85)
I think what got some people upset about the "headhunter" postings in net.jobs was that these particular postings were *qualitatively* different from the group's usual fare. There were about five of them all at once, all written in the same style - that gets a bit tedious. They were written like "advertising" - lots of detail about benefits and such, and rather little specific info about the job itself. I don't think there should be any ban on postings by headhunters - I just think they should be encouraged to post less annoying articles. I recognize why a headhunter isn't going to name the company being recruited for, but in most other respects the article could be the same as any other job posting. How many people would object to well-written postings that happened to come from a headhunter?
ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (02/13/85)
> > Your hysteria seems to be taking up more space than the postings that > > you are ranting about. > > Ditto. I think the original complaint was because the headhunter's postings were QUANTITATIVELY different. 50 lines of baloney mixed in with their 10 lines of information, whereas most postings are half-and-half ... multiplied by something like 7 of them in the same day. A repeat of those postings would take up more space and readers' time than the hysteria. I hope it doesn't repeat. -- Norman Diamond UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa "Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."
lazeldes@wlcrjs.UUCP (Leah A Zeldes) (02/14/85)
In article <416@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: > Aren't there many students that use the net? Headhunters >might be helpful to them. Quite right. There are also those of us who use the net through public access systems (thanks to the generosity of the people who donate time and money to run them). We don't all have jobs either. Although I admit net.jobs hasn't been very helpful to me, as I'm in a non-technical field. Anyone need a PR person? -- Leah A Zeldes ...ihnp4!wlcrjs!lazeldes