Resume Critique
-
Cost savings of decisions, across the board, is a BS process. It cannot be calcluated meaningfully and is always just opinion. It's useful when a third party audits internally with neutral goals to attempt to determine decision value. But to an outside party it is completely meaningless.
-
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
If I bragged about that, I could brag about just anything.
If it's released to the job, you probably should.Its better than bragging get about nothing and listing a word.
As a hiring manager, I don't agree. I want to know what is useful to me and factual, not opinion and only useful to someone else.
Knowing a prospect is able to stop failure is surely useful. If rather hire somebody that can show an history of preventing failure over one that never has.
No, because that is almost entirely dependent on the person created the failure and being willing to avoid it, it tells us almost nothing about the candidate. Or in this case, as there isn't even a suggestion that they influenced the decision, it tells us absolutely nothing. But does tell us that they don't know how to convey meaningful information - a major business concern with IT people.
No. Disagree still. It does show it as they have said it. It shows they are not a 'yes man's and can change a project for the better.
We don't know that, because we don't know who created the failure, or who corrected it, or why. It just tells us nothing in that regard.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
You can't get away from the arbitrary failure component. That is the critical piece here. Along with not knowing if the disaster avoidance was the employee or a manager.
Then put that information in the CV. On that one line. Putting on your CV means you did it. Otherwise it should not be on the CV. I want to know what you did. Not what soembody else did.
Right. And Hyper-V is what he did. Savings $100K, both in the creation of the cost, and in the fixing of the cost, were someone else.
Not necessarily. If you read my post I'm saying to say why he use HyperV and gave a possible example why. If it was 'because I was told to'... That's pretty crap.
But the failure was because he was told to, right? Or is he saying that HE was going to screw up and not consolidate, but stopped himself?
No. He stopped not consolidation by doing consolidation.
-
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
You can't get away from the arbitrary failure component. That is the critical piece here. Along with not knowing if the disaster avoidance was the employee or a manager.
Then put that information in the CV. On that one line. Putting on your CV means you did it. Otherwise it should not be on the CV. I want to know what you did. Not what soembody else did.
Right. And Hyper-V is what he did. Savings $100K, both in the creation of the cost, and in the fixing of the cost, were someone else.
Not necessarily. If you read my post I'm saying to say why he use HyperV and gave a possible example why. If it was 'because I was told to'... That's pretty crap.
But the failure was because he was told to, right? Or is he saying that HE was going to screw up and not consolidate, but stopped himself?
No. He stopped not consolidation by doing consolidation.
Sure, but that's meaningless. He stopped failure by not failing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
You can't get away from the arbitrary failure component. That is the critical piece here. Along with not knowing if the disaster avoidance was the employee or a manager.
Then put that information in the CV. On that one line. Putting on your CV means you did it. Otherwise it should not be on the CV. I want to know what you did. Not what soembody else did.
Right. And Hyper-V is what he did. Savings $100K, both in the creation of the cost, and in the fixing of the cost, were someone else.
Not necessarily. If you read my post I'm saying to say why he use HyperV and gave a possible example why. If it was 'because I was told to'... That's pretty crap.
But the failure was because he was told to, right? Or is he saying that HE was going to screw up and not consolidate, but stopped himself?
No. He stopped not consolidation by doing consolidation.
Sure, but that's meaningless. He stopped failure by not failing.
Yes. And not failing is something to brag about.
-
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
You can't get away from the arbitrary failure component. That is the critical piece here. Along with not knowing if the disaster avoidance was the employee or a manager.
Then put that information in the CV. On that one line. Putting on your CV means you did it. Otherwise it should not be on the CV. I want to know what you did. Not what soembody else did.
Right. And Hyper-V is what he did. Savings $100K, both in the creation of the cost, and in the fixing of the cost, were someone else.
Not necessarily. If you read my post I'm saying to say why he use HyperV and gave a possible example why. If it was 'because I was told to'... That's pretty crap.
But the failure was because he was told to, right? Or is he saying that HE was going to screw up and not consolidate, but stopped himself?
No. He stopped not consolidation by doing consolidation.
Was it his failure and he changed his mind? Did he talk the CEO out of it? Was it really considered honestly? Was the good idea always the leading option and he just didn't get in the way? Was he the one talked out of doing the wrong thing?
-
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
You can't get away from the arbitrary failure component. That is the critical piece here. Along with not knowing if the disaster avoidance was the employee or a manager.
Then put that information in the CV. On that one line. Putting on your CV means you did it. Otherwise it should not be on the CV. I want to know what you did. Not what soembody else did.
Right. And Hyper-V is what he did. Savings $100K, both in the creation of the cost, and in the fixing of the cost, were someone else.
Not necessarily. If you read my post I'm saying to say why he use HyperV and gave a possible example why. If it was 'because I was told to'... That's pretty crap.
But the failure was because he was told to, right? Or is he saying that HE was going to screw up and not consolidate, but stopped himself?
No. He stopped not consolidation by doing consolidation.
Sure, but that's meaningless. He stopped failure by not failing.
Yes. And not failing is something to brag about.
Again, this is never true. Ever. You are talking about self sabotage. This is silly in the taxi / wall way.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
If I bragged about that, I could brag about just anything.
If it's released to the job, you probably should.Its better than bragging get about nothing and listing a word.
As a hiring manager, I don't agree. I want to know what is useful to me and factual, not opinion and only useful to someone else.
Knowing a prospect is able to stop failure is surely useful. If rather hire somebody that can show an history of preventing failure over one that never has.
No, because that is almost entirely dependent on the person created the failure and being willing to avoid it, it tells us almost nothing about the candidate. Or in this case, as there isn't even a suggestion that they influenced the decision, it tells us absolutely nothing. But does tell us that they don't know how to convey meaningful information - a major business concern with IT people.
No. Disagree still. It does show it as they have said it. It shows they are not a 'yes man's and can change a project for the better.
We don't know that, because we don't know who created the failure, or who corrected it, or why. It just tells us nothing in that regard.
Who created the failure is not important. The fact he sees the failure, and proposed a better solution, and went in that direction
.... Shows a success and experience. Which needs to be told about on the CV. The why is what's important... Not a word on its own. -
Normal people avoid all kinds of failures every moment, of every day. Imagine if you bought a Corvette and came home and your wife is furious because you spent $150K that you didn't have, on a car you didn't need. Now explain to her how dumb she is because you ACTUALLY saved $300K by not buying the $450K Ferrari that you also didn't need. Boy will she fill dumb once she realized how much success you had in not buying that Ferrari.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
You can't get away from the arbitrary failure component. That is the critical piece here. Along with not knowing if the disaster avoidance was the employee or a manager.
Then put that information in the CV. On that one line. Putting on your CV means you did it. Otherwise it should not be on the CV. I want to know what you did. Not what soembody else did.
Right. And Hyper-V is what he did. Savings $100K, both in the creation of the cost, and in the fixing of the cost, were someone else.
Not necessarily. If you read my post I'm saying to say why he use HyperV and gave a possible example why. If it was 'because I was told to'... That's pretty crap.
But the failure was because he was told to, right? Or is he saying that HE was going to screw up and not consolidate, but stopped himself?
No. He stopped not consolidation by doing consolidation.
Sure, but that's meaningless. He stopped failure by not failing.
Yes. And not failing is something to brag about.
Again, this is never true. Ever. You are talking about self sabotage. This is silly in the taxi / wall way.
This is not self sabotage. Telling of your success 'consolidates servers rather than like for like renewal saving x' is a success and shows depth. Saying 'HyperV' doesn't. Why HyperV. How did you decide. Why was gay better? Etc... Those are what I want to see. Not a logical static mindless void giving no information about you or why that word is on the CV at all.
-
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
Who created the failure is not important.
Or it is everything. How it got there, by whom, and how eminant it was are way more important than the avoidance of it. Its' like saying that avoiding a brick wall while driving is a success regardless of if the brick wall was 100 yards off of the road, sitting in the middle of the road, or dropped from the sky just feet in front of your car.
-
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
You can't get away from the arbitrary failure component. That is the critical piece here. Along with not knowing if the disaster avoidance was the employee or a manager.
Then put that information in the CV. On that one line. Putting on your CV means you did it. Otherwise it should not be on the CV. I want to know what you did. Not what soembody else did.
Right. And Hyper-V is what he did. Savings $100K, both in the creation of the cost, and in the fixing of the cost, were someone else.
Not necessarily. If you read my post I'm saying to say why he use HyperV and gave a possible example why. If it was 'because I was told to'... That's pretty crap.
But the failure was because he was told to, right? Or is he saying that HE was going to screw up and not consolidate, but stopped himself?
No. He stopped not consolidation by doing consolidation.
Sure, but that's meaningless. He stopped failure by not failing.
Yes. And not failing is something to brag about.
Again, this is never true. Ever. You are talking about self sabotage. This is silly in the taxi / wall way.
This is not self sabotage. Telling of your success 'consolidates servers rather than like for like renewal saving x' is a success and shows depth. Saying 'HyperV' doesn't. Why HyperV. How did you decide. Why was gay better? Etc... Those are what I want to see. Not a logical static mindless void giving no information about you or why that word is on the CV at all.
Setting your own bar so low is absolutely self sabotage. You have to make yourself worthless to make such a meaningless avoidance of failure seem impressive in comparison to your personal baseline.
-
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
Why HyperV. How did you decide. Why was gay better? Etc... Those are what I want to see. Not a logical static mindless void giving no information about you or why that word is on the CV at all.
Exactly. And telling you saved money against unknown options that aren't sensible answers none of this and suggests that the CV writers doesn't understand any of these things so put in meaningless opinion as filler to try to avoid all of this real info in the hopes that the hiring manager isn't very smart or skims it quickly and doesn't really read it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
Normal people avoid all kinds of failures every moment, of every day. Imagine if you bought a Corvette and came home and your wife is furious because you spent $150K that you didn't have, on a car you didn't need. Now explain to her how dumb she is because you ACTUALLY saved $300K by not buying the $450K Ferrari that you also didn't need. Boy will she fill dumb once she realized how much success you had in not buying that Ferrari.
The success would have been on the wife's CV saying 'Saved 100k through purchase of a Ford'. In your example they both failed
-
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
You can't get away from the arbitrary failure component. That is the critical piece here. Along with not knowing if the disaster avoidance was the employee or a manager.
Then put that information in the CV. On that one line. Putting on your CV means you did it. Otherwise it should not be on the CV. I want to know what you did. Not what soembody else did.
Right. And Hyper-V is what he did. Savings $100K, both in the creation of the cost, and in the fixing of the cost, were someone else.
Not necessarily. If you read my post I'm saying to say why he use HyperV and gave a possible example why. If it was 'because I was told to'... That's pretty crap.
But the failure was because he was told to, right? Or is he saying that HE was going to screw up and not consolidate, but stopped himself?
No. He stopped not consolidation by doing consolidation.
Sure, but that's meaningless. He stopped failure by not failing.
Yes. And not failing is something to brag about.
Again, this is never true. Ever. You are talking about self sabotage. This is silly in the taxi / wall way.
This is not self sabotage. Telling of your success 'consolidates servers rather than like for like renewal saving x' is a success and shows depth. Saying 'HyperV' doesn't. Why HyperV. How did you decide. Why was gay better? Etc... Those are what I want to see. Not a logical static mindless void giving no information about you or why that word is on the CV at all.
Setting your own bar so low is absolutely self sabotage. You have to make yourself worthless to make such a meaningless avoidance of failure seem impressive in comparison to your personal baseline.
You are showing you have worth that you are able to prevent the failure. SAM land is such a strange place.
-
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
Normal people avoid all kinds of failures every moment, of every day. Imagine if you bought a Corvette and came home and your wife is furious because you spent $150K that you didn't have, on a car you didn't need. Now explain to her how dumb she is because you ACTUALLY saved $300K by not buying the $450K Ferrari that you also didn't need. Boy will she fill dumb once she realized how much success you had in not buying that Ferrari.
The success would have been on the wife's CV saying 'Saved 100k through purchase of a Ford'. In your example they both failed
How do we know that Hyper-V was not like the Corvette? Nowhere was the business process or success mentioned, only the avoidance of the Ferrari. We have no reason to think that Hyper-V was the right, or even a good choice, only that what other option was considered was worse.
But you've highlighted my point. The "success" is skipped here. We have the Ferrari and the Corvette only in the CV example, never the Ford. So you've caught my point, but I'm not sure you've applied it to the problem at hand.
-
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
You can't get away from the arbitrary failure component. That is the critical piece here. Along with not knowing if the disaster avoidance was the employee or a manager.
Then put that information in the CV. On that one line. Putting on your CV means you did it. Otherwise it should not be on the CV. I want to know what you did. Not what soembody else did.
Right. And Hyper-V is what he did. Savings $100K, both in the creation of the cost, and in the fixing of the cost, were someone else.
Not necessarily. If you read my post I'm saying to say why he use HyperV and gave a possible example why. If it was 'because I was told to'... That's pretty crap.
But the failure was because he was told to, right? Or is he saying that HE was going to screw up and not consolidate, but stopped himself?
No. He stopped not consolidation by doing consolidation.
Sure, but that's meaningless. He stopped failure by not failing.
Yes. And not failing is something to brag about.
Again, this is never true. Ever. You are talking about self sabotage. This is silly in the taxi / wall way.
This is not self sabotage. Telling of your success 'consolidates servers rather than like for like renewal saving x' is a success and shows depth. Saying 'HyperV' doesn't. Why HyperV. How did you decide. Why was gay better? Etc... Those are what I want to see. Not a logical static mindless void giving no information about you or why that word is on the CV at all.
Setting your own bar so low is absolutely self sabotage. You have to make yourself worthless to make such a meaningless avoidance of failure seem impressive in comparison to your personal baseline.
You are showing you have worth that you are able to prevent the failure. SAM land is such a strange place.
So, in Jimmyland, NOT driving your taxi into walls is success. And you think SAM land is weird?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
Normal people avoid all kinds of failures every moment, of every day. Imagine if you bought a Corvette and came home and your wife is furious because you spent $150K that you didn't have, on a car you didn't need. Now explain to her how dumb she is because you ACTUALLY saved $300K by not buying the $450K Ferrari that you also didn't need. Boy will she fill dumb once she realized how much success you had in not buying that Ferrari.
The success would have been on the wife's CV saying 'Saved 100k through purchase of a Ford'. In your example they both failed
How do we know that Hyper-V was not like the Corvette? Nowhere was the business process or success mentioned, only the avoidance of the Ferrari. We have no reason to think that Hyper-V was the right, or even a good choice, only that what other option was considered was worse.
But you've highlighted my point. The "success" is skipped here. We have the Ferrari and the Corvette only in the CV example, never the Ford. So you've caught my point, but I'm not sure you've applied it to the problem at hand.
The fact that the CV writer is saying it's a success and explaining why... Is why.
-
SAMland - Brag about doing a good job.
Jimmyland - Brag about not doing a really bad job. -
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
Normal people avoid all kinds of failures every moment, of every day. Imagine if you bought a Corvette and came home and your wife is furious because you spent $150K that you didn't have, on a car you didn't need. Now explain to her how dumb she is because you ACTUALLY saved $300K by not buying the $450K Ferrari that you also didn't need. Boy will she fill dumb once she realized how much success you had in not buying that Ferrari.
The success would have been on the wife's CV saying 'Saved 100k through purchase of a Ford'. In your example they both failed
How do we know that Hyper-V was not like the Corvette? Nowhere was the business process or success mentioned, only the avoidance of the Ferrari. We have no reason to think that Hyper-V was the right, or even a good choice, only that what other option was considered was worse.
But you've highlighted my point. The "success" is skipped here. We have the Ferrari and the Corvette only in the CV example, never the Ford. So you've caught my point, but I'm not sure you've applied it to the problem at hand.
The fact that the CV writer is saying it's a success and explaining why... Is why.
There is no explanantion and no foundation for calling it a success. Hence my assumption that it is a lie.
