Re:The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade...
by ghaff on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @03:23PM
(#10382831)
I think it really depends. I suspect that, for a lot of people, the best strategy is to focus time and energy on companies that they're particularly interested in, have some in with, have unusual qualifications that are a particularly good match for, etc. But, perhaps in parallel, cast a wider net with a more shotgun approach that doesn't devote a lot of time to any single company pre-interview.
Re:The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade...
by logfromblammo on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:18PM
(#10383554)
That's not how probability works.
10 trials with a 10% success rate yields a 65.13% chance for at least one success.
100 trials with a 0.33% success rate yields a 28.39% chance for at least one success.
You have to use the binomial probability theorem to determine any particular number of hits.
trials! / ( successes! * failures! ) * P_success ^ successes * P_failure ^ failures
Re:The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade...
by hollaur on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @06:58PM
(#10384041)
I actually read an article on Medium that goes into this in-depth. It's not published anymore, but I had it in a G-Doc, which I linked here:
https://docs.google.com/a/freelanship.com/document/d/1pnuE_b...
Re:The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade...
by Negitivefrags on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @06:10PM
(#10383815)
Actually, with your numbers the chances are 65.1% and 28.3% respectively.
For example, what if in actuality, all other things being equal, they had a 1 in 10 chance focused vs. 1 in 300 chance sanitized, then the results would be 100% chance for the focused versus 33% chance of a response with the sanitized ones. I just used the same thing you did to make the numbers work the other direction.
For the record, based on what I've seen and read, I do think there might be a case for the shotgunned approach, and I personally have had poor luck with the focused approach. But your numbers don't help prove it, sorry.