We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

Re:We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2... by BearGoesChirp on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @05:17PM (#15596665)

If you use a technique that cuts a lot of people, but cuts more bad people than good people, you'll still end up with plenty of good people. The difference in comparison isn't between the average and the good person who was cut, but between the good person who was cut and the good person who wasn't cut. What is the chance of the heuristic cutting someone 10% better than the best person not cut?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2... by Balgair on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @05:47PM (#15596882)

BTW, this is a 'solved' problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2... by jazzdev on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @06:58PM (#15597375)

The optimal solution only picks the best candidate 37% of the time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2... by Balgair on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @08:15PM (#15597901)

That was not my reading of it. To me, given a large enough pool (~20+), you can statistically assume you'll get a top 10% candidate with this method, at least that is what i read.

Still, this method at least has some structure to it. As opposed to the anecdotes that the rest of the thread is.

[ Parent | on HN ]