We need some spidey web magic in our neighbourhood.
Sometime just over a week ago our Internet stopped working. A few days later we received a letter from our ISP telling us about the fantastic new upgrade in our area. It warned that we might lose Internet for a few hours, and advised not to call them if that happened. It would have been useful if they had included a phone number to call as we had been without it for days. And we couldn't go online to find it.
Data usage for my phone has skyrocketed, ha.
I did receive a text from a friend asking for help with an upcoming interview and also to help her with "not putting all my eggs in one basket, even though there is only one egg and one basket". Regarding the latter, I suggested she try to pretend that it was a mock interview for the 'next' interview and to judge it as a learning experience. So, if and when we are reconnected properly, I'll put up another "guidelines" edition all about interviews, which will be most difficult for me because they are usually a bit of a blur for me.
I also have a rather heartwarming tale to tell...
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Thursday, 6 May 2010
Debating debates
I spoke of my but three hats before. On this important day of potential sea change and tide shift, let me throw some more hats into the ring.
One of the most entertaining things about this election has been the debates. Correction: One of the most entertaining things about this election has been reading Twitter during the debates, an endless stream of witty oneliners from friends, alternative stats from 63336, and poll listings from Tweetminster. Almost as interesting were the partisan tweeters; each declaring their own party as a winner, although these were amusing for a different reason.
The 'winner' of the debates became as moot as the issues being debated themselves. The after match analysis was a similar affair on television to Twitter - William Hague congratulating Cameron, Cable commending Clegg, Balls bravoing Brown. I would have loved, loved if they had shaken it up a bit! If one had acknowledged the strength of another, if one had admitted a particular slip-up or failing of their peer. It would have made for almost shockingly frank discussion. Of course I more than understand the nature of party politics, but the commentary would be a bit more progressive if it was somehow edgier. It would hold more purpose. And entertainment, for sure!
On a similar topic, there are plenty of partisan blogs, and some of them are very good. They cover a wide range of subjects and party issues and are constantly updated. Guardian did a good round up of the party interwebz efforts. Tweetminster does a fantastic job of following all the MPs and party candidates across the political spectrum. I follow a wide range of them, but unsurprisingly often none of them are particularly revealing and their tweet stances are predictable.
Our national newspapers offer a cornucopia of views, and most of them have endorsed a party, as is their absolute right to do so, but it would be good to hear/read their real motives. The most stimulating justification for support was outlined by the Economist, and that was even based on politics rather than hyperbole and self-interest (or so I would like to believe from a publication that aims to progress intelligence...)
So what's the other option? Our BBC bastion is required to be neutral, and give a certain amount of coverage to all sides (though Murdoch would surmise that it has a left-wing bias). However, because of its mandate towards its license payers, it plays safe rather than cover all the views in a truly cutting coverage. Does this stifle good debate or risque discussion? Paxman excluded of course. And perhaps John Humphrys. But they both take the role of the 'cynical general public' and partisanship is not often seen from commentators on the BBC, only from the candidates themselves. A room full of Paxmen and Humphrys left to their own, real opinionated devices could make for brilliant television.
If you let me cross the pond for a moment of digression, political debate pundits in the USA are a different breed and approach the notion of spreading political information in a totally different manner. My personal favourites are Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. They provide what can only be described as full-on infotainment, and get away with much more commentary and bias than the BBC would probably allow, and possibly even the commercial channels, and can put forward criticism and ideas that political candidates themselves can't get away with.
The problem is when all of this political commentary and information leads to misinformation. When media machines and individuals execute themselves in wholly irresponsible manners. It is damaging and it is dangerous.
Sometimes they come across as stereotypes of themselves. Olbermann fights a relentless vitriolic verbal war against the likes of Hannity, Beck, Bachmann, Coulter and Limbaugh, which has recently extended onto his Twitter feed ... and we are back with the partisan problem. Then it becomes less about the discussion of ideas and more about point-scoring against the other team. Again I worry that this becomes damaging towards the 'info' element of the broadcasting, verging on self-serving, self-congratulating and alienating the undecideds or floating voters. I suppose the British equivalents could be the Daily Mail... and the Guardian?
Incidentally, it may be that we'll see Sarah Palin go this way. While I haven't read 'Going Rogue' I'll hazard that it will be a different kind of manifesto than 'Audacity of Hope' - Palin could reasonably expect to make a lot of money from doing the speaking n' signing route rather than public office, and she'd get the bonus of being able to say whatever the hell she likes. As a commentator she'd have no mandate to hold up, answering to no call but her own, and the occasional sling of insults from Olbermann, which she gets already.
And that's all very well, for them to become an aggressive evangelist for an issue or cause in which they feel passionately and expert in is almost admirable, regardless of whether they are a commentator or fully in the political ring as a candidate or representative. But becoming an ardent spokesperon for a certain side can slightly marr their credentials (whoever would have though Olbermann and Palin could be lumped together like that?!). And this is the crux of the problem of the politics of misinformation. If only hardcore conservatives follow the likes of Palin or Beck (or, again, the Daily Mail), and only hardcore liberals follow the likes of Olbermann and Maddow (or, again, the Guardian), there is never anything new to learn from or teach the moderates stuck in the middle of them.
The moderates are our floating voters who haven't decided on their own political voice amongst the chattering and twittering political classes. For those of us who have - the party members, the candidates, the papers, the media outlets and the political evangelists, there rests a delicate responsibility to these undecideds, whether avid political readers, pub politicians, or vaguely disinterested polling card carriers. The responsibility is to offer a fair fight, and a genuine (and interesting) representation of the issues.
Is this at all possible amongst the melee of voices? Cathy Newman fills a niche quite well with her election 'fact check' blog. Entertaining as well as somewhat purposeful.
But after all these 'hats', the other voice would be an academic blog. And let's be honest, that'd be bloody boring.
So I'll leave you with just a few more points to chew on. Charlie Brooker pretty much hits the mark for lolitics during this campaign. And with a beautiful balance of cynicism, but not so much to self-righteously announce that he's too above voting. Nothing irks a political geek more than a tacit consenter with a chip on their shoulder. Well done Brooker.
And finally, Stephen Fry's compelling blog piece. After weeks of coquettish smatterings of hints on Twitter of who he might support, I had to wonder if he knew just what power he was wielding in those 140 characters. 140 characters and 1.5 million people. I supposed he would know, and hoped he knew the level of 'delicate responsibility' that would also hang on those 140 characters. And he did not fail to deliver to me such a beautiful poliloquy to make me proud. It carries what I would wish to articulate, though more wonderful, vulnerable, and (thankfully) to a much larger audience.
And that is why I steered clear of it all.
And because I'm just not as funny as Charlie Brooker.
One of the most entertaining things about this election has been the debates. Correction: One of the most entertaining things about this election has been reading Twitter during the debates, an endless stream of witty oneliners from friends, alternative stats from 63336, and poll listings from Tweetminster. Almost as interesting were the partisan tweeters; each declaring their own party as a winner, although these were amusing for a different reason.
The 'winner' of the debates became as moot as the issues being debated themselves. The after match analysis was a similar affair on television to Twitter - William Hague congratulating Cameron, Cable commending Clegg, Balls bravoing Brown. I would have loved, loved if they had shaken it up a bit! If one had acknowledged the strength of another, if one had admitted a particular slip-up or failing of their peer. It would have made for almost shockingly frank discussion. Of course I more than understand the nature of party politics, but the commentary would be a bit more progressive if it was somehow edgier. It would hold more purpose. And entertainment, for sure!
On a similar topic, there are plenty of partisan blogs, and some of them are very good. They cover a wide range of subjects and party issues and are constantly updated. Guardian did a good round up of the party interwebz efforts. Tweetminster does a fantastic job of following all the MPs and party candidates across the political spectrum. I follow a wide range of them, but unsurprisingly often none of them are particularly revealing and their tweet stances are predictable.
Our national newspapers offer a cornucopia of views, and most of them have endorsed a party, as is their absolute right to do so, but it would be good to hear/read their real motives. The most stimulating justification for support was outlined by the Economist, and that was even based on politics rather than hyperbole and self-interest (or so I would like to believe from a publication that aims to progress intelligence...)
So what's the other option? Our BBC bastion is required to be neutral, and give a certain amount of coverage to all sides (though Murdoch would surmise that it has a left-wing bias). However, because of its mandate towards its license payers, it plays safe rather than cover all the views in a truly cutting coverage. Does this stifle good debate or risque discussion? Paxman excluded of course. And perhaps John Humphrys. But they both take the role of the 'cynical general public' and partisanship is not often seen from commentators on the BBC, only from the candidates themselves. A room full of Paxmen and Humphrys left to their own, real opinionated devices could make for brilliant television.
If you let me cross the pond for a moment of digression, political debate pundits in the USA are a different breed and approach the notion of spreading political information in a totally different manner. My personal favourites are Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. They provide what can only be described as full-on infotainment, and get away with much more commentary and bias than the BBC would probably allow, and possibly even the commercial channels, and can put forward criticism and ideas that political candidates themselves can't get away with.
The problem is when all of this political commentary and information leads to misinformation. When media machines and individuals execute themselves in wholly irresponsible manners. It is damaging and it is dangerous.
Sometimes they come across as stereotypes of themselves. Olbermann fights a relentless vitriolic verbal war against the likes of Hannity, Beck, Bachmann, Coulter and Limbaugh, which has recently extended onto his Twitter feed ... and we are back with the partisan problem. Then it becomes less about the discussion of ideas and more about point-scoring against the other team. Again I worry that this becomes damaging towards the 'info' element of the broadcasting, verging on self-serving, self-congratulating and alienating the undecideds or floating voters. I suppose the British equivalents could be the Daily Mail... and the Guardian?
Incidentally, it may be that we'll see Sarah Palin go this way. While I haven't read 'Going Rogue' I'll hazard that it will be a different kind of manifesto than 'Audacity of Hope' - Palin could reasonably expect to make a lot of money from doing the speaking n' signing route rather than public office, and she'd get the bonus of being able to say whatever the hell she likes. As a commentator she'd have no mandate to hold up, answering to no call but her own, and the occasional sling of insults from Olbermann, which she gets already.
And that's all very well, for them to become an aggressive evangelist for an issue or cause in which they feel passionately and expert in is almost admirable, regardless of whether they are a commentator or fully in the political ring as a candidate or representative. But becoming an ardent spokesperon for a certain side can slightly marr their credentials (whoever would have though Olbermann and Palin could be lumped together like that?!). And this is the crux of the problem of the politics of misinformation. If only hardcore conservatives follow the likes of Palin or Beck (or, again, the Daily Mail), and only hardcore liberals follow the likes of Olbermann and Maddow (or, again, the Guardian), there is never anything new to learn from or teach the moderates stuck in the middle of them.
The moderates are our floating voters who haven't decided on their own political voice amongst the chattering and twittering political classes. For those of us who have - the party members, the candidates, the papers, the media outlets and the political evangelists, there rests a delicate responsibility to these undecideds, whether avid political readers, pub politicians, or vaguely disinterested polling card carriers. The responsibility is to offer a fair fight, and a genuine (and interesting) representation of the issues.
Is this at all possible amongst the melee of voices? Cathy Newman fills a niche quite well with her election 'fact check' blog. Entertaining as well as somewhat purposeful.
But after all these 'hats', the other voice would be an academic blog. And let's be honest, that'd be bloody boring.
So I'll leave you with just a few more points to chew on. Charlie Brooker pretty much hits the mark for lolitics during this campaign. And with a beautiful balance of cynicism, but not so much to self-righteously announce that he's too above voting. Nothing irks a political geek more than a tacit consenter with a chip on their shoulder. Well done Brooker.
And finally, Stephen Fry's compelling blog piece. After weeks of coquettish smatterings of hints on Twitter of who he might support, I had to wonder if he knew just what power he was wielding in those 140 characters. 140 characters and 1.5 million people. I supposed he would know, and hoped he knew the level of 'delicate responsibility' that would also hang on those 140 characters. And he did not fail to deliver to me such a beautiful poliloquy to make me proud. It carries what I would wish to articulate, though more wonderful, vulnerable, and (thankfully) to a much larger audience.
And that is why I steered clear of it all.
And because I'm just not as funny as Charlie Brooker.
Monday, 3 May 2010
the naming of hats
For a girl who studied politics and calls herself lolitician, there hasn't been much mention of either politics or lol in this blog. Doesn't she know there's an election on!?
Why have I been so silent on these events? I never intended to be.
I had originally planned to focus this blog on being 'lol scum' with the idea that if/when I found employment or an internship, I would gradually include more lolitics and slowly change the focus of the blog (hence the URL).
The problem is not that I found a job. I do work in a field where political neutrality is important, but that would be a thinly veiled excuse for not talking about political issues. The problem comes from within: I have three separate political voices within me.
That's not to say that I am being haunted by the likes of George Washington, Winston Churchill and John Locke. That could be very ugly indeed.
Nope. It's a bite more like C.S Lewis' depiction of every practical cat having three names. I think every practical person (or every politics geek) should have more than one political 'hat'. I am so much less poetic that C.S Lewis, but I'll try to explain.
First of all, I have my own personal politics. This includes the political party I support based on policies and ideology. It could simply be the party (or parties!) I decide to vote for on election day, and that could be a private decision between me and the secret ballot's box. It could also be my support for a particular candidate, my membership of a political party, or my engagement in a political campaign. However I decide to articulate it, it's my personal opinion and I have my own reasons for following it.
Secondly, I have an academic approach to politics. This is because I studied politics at University, and it isn't necessarily related to party politics. I was more interested in ideas and processes and issues than parties. And when I looked at ideas, I tried to look at them from a neutral position. I thought this was really important, because I thought that analysing ideas and issues from a biased position wasn't going to lead to any progress in the any understanding of politics. Academic study is about looking at all sides of an issue, making balanced arguments, and looking for scientific patterns and trends. Being politically neutral while studying politics also helped me learn so much more, and helped me to shape, label and refine my own personal opinions.
Finally, I have a general, light-hearted interest in politics... or lolitics. Whether it's biased or not, I don't usually care. I love anything that is cutting, irreverent, witty and current. I've already touched on this before on this blog, also lamenting on the lack of truly great political humour in the UK.
Although it's great that the UK leaders' debates have attracted greater interest in the UK's general election, and some of the after-match analysis is quite interesting, after all the squirming and worming about opinion polls, performance and punchiness, there's a gap unfilled. I'm looking for infotainment with bite, and I can't quite find it.
By infotainment I don't mean dumbed-down, I mean truly engaging, and more importantly, meaningful.
Anyone with a true 21st-century recessionista 2.0 vibe should be asking: If I can't find the infotainment, why don't I create it?
Who wants to be a milliner?
I have three different political 'hats' and as anybody with only one head knows, it's very difficult to wear more than one hat at a time.
...and if you notice me in profound meditation, it's because of a rapt contemplation, of the thought, of the thought, of the thought
of the scourge of political misinformation...
(to be continued, yup)
Why have I been so silent on these events? I never intended to be.
I had originally planned to focus this blog on being 'lol scum' with the idea that if/when I found employment or an internship, I would gradually include more lolitics and slowly change the focus of the blog (hence the URL).
The problem is not that I found a job. I do work in a field where political neutrality is important, but that would be a thinly veiled excuse for not talking about political issues. The problem comes from within: I have three separate political voices within me.
That's not to say that I am being haunted by the likes of George Washington, Winston Churchill and John Locke. That could be very ugly indeed.
Nope. It's a bite more like C.S Lewis' depiction of every practical cat having three names. I think every practical person (or every politics geek) should have more than one political 'hat'. I am so much less poetic that C.S Lewis, but I'll try to explain.
First of all, I have my own personal politics. This includes the political party I support based on policies and ideology. It could simply be the party (or parties!) I decide to vote for on election day, and that could be a private decision between me and the secret ballot's box. It could also be my support for a particular candidate, my membership of a political party, or my engagement in a political campaign. However I decide to articulate it, it's my personal opinion and I have my own reasons for following it.
Secondly, I have an academic approach to politics. This is because I studied politics at University, and it isn't necessarily related to party politics. I was more interested in ideas and processes and issues than parties. And when I looked at ideas, I tried to look at them from a neutral position. I thought this was really important, because I thought that analysing ideas and issues from a biased position wasn't going to lead to any progress in the any understanding of politics. Academic study is about looking at all sides of an issue, making balanced arguments, and looking for scientific patterns and trends. Being politically neutral while studying politics also helped me learn so much more, and helped me to shape, label and refine my own personal opinions.
Finally, I have a general, light-hearted interest in politics... or lolitics. Whether it's biased or not, I don't usually care. I love anything that is cutting, irreverent, witty and current. I've already touched on this before on this blog, also lamenting on the lack of truly great political humour in the UK.
Although it's great that the UK leaders' debates have attracted greater interest in the UK's general election, and some of the after-match analysis is quite interesting, after all the squirming and worming about opinion polls, performance and punchiness, there's a gap unfilled. I'm looking for infotainment with bite, and I can't quite find it.
By infotainment I don't mean dumbed-down, I mean truly engaging, and more importantly, meaningful.
Anyone with a true 21st-century recessionista 2.0 vibe should be asking: If I can't find the infotainment, why don't I create it?
Who wants to be a milliner?
I have three different political 'hats' and as anybody with only one head knows, it's very difficult to wear more than one hat at a time.
...and if you notice me in profound meditation, it's because of a rapt contemplation, of the thought, of the thought, of the thought
of the scourge of political misinformation...
(to be continued, yup)
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Slow off the meme
Told you I was not very good at being an early adopter...stuff unemployed people like.
Also: http://www.unemployed-graduate.com.
Also, coming soon: Long boring essay on why I'm a fraud, not because I'm not unemployed, but because I'm not really a lolitician...
Also: http://www.unemployed-graduate.com.
Also, coming soon: Long boring essay on why I'm a fraud, not because I'm not unemployed, but because I'm not really a lolitician...
Monday, 26 April 2010
Guideline 5: Cover Twitter
Cover letters are like teaser trailers for the main event - the CV. A teaser trailer gives snippets of the main story in order to draw in a paying audience to see the movie. Trailers have a very limited amount of time in which to do that, and they must stand out amongst all the other trailers being shown at the same time.
I was helping a friend write a cover letter for a job application. He'd send me a draft, and I'd scan-read it and report back. Then he'd make some changes, send it back, and I'd do the same until either he or I was happy. More often than not I was telling him to cut something out, or reword it to make it shorter.
I think there is a habit amongst recent graduates to try to divulge information in incredibly convoluted language. It's a habit most likely picked up from reading complex academic journals, a habit that does not help when thrust into the job market.
So while I was waiting on another tightened redraft from my friend, I got thinking. I was trying to get him to make the first paragraph of his cover letter short, snappy, and easy to read. What else is short, snappy and easy to read? Tweets, of course.
So I set myself the task of writing my CV in a single Tweet.
There are services and sites devoted to using Twitter for jobhunting; here's a list of some of them, and here's another jobhunting site using Twitter. However, most of them involve normal full-sized CVs, and I'm not entirely convinced of their use (prove me wrong please, if you can!).
I wrote my Tweet CV and I was quite proud of its pith, until I found this competition run in January by workthing (workthing's blog is truly excellent by the way). You can find the winner here and also some honourable mentions and bad examples here. Mine turned out to be rather weak by comparison! I'm going to keep working on my Tweet CV; I could spend a whole lot of time making it perfect.
In of itself, a Tweet CV might not be much use, but I still heartily recommend having a go at writing yours because it's a really good exercise in writing short, snappy, work profiles. The 140 character limit is a great motivator for using language creatively and effectively.
I did then ask myself if this was a worrying degradation of language into soulless 140 character sentences. Is it a gross reduction of one's life into one line? Is this a grassroots introduction of Orwellian newsspeak?
My answer to all of these questions: Not at all. In my final year of high school I was awarded an A for my Advanced English portfolio, which had consisted only of one short poem and one piece of prose written almost entirely in AOL speak. Had Twitter existed in 2003 I probably would have done a piece based on that instead. The point is not to reduce the feeling, or the beauty of the language. The challenge is to compact it without losing meaning, beauty, or indeed originality.
Translating these ideas to the challenge of creating your own Tweet CV should help you to understand the purpose of a good cover letter.
(You could also try expressing your career in 10-line poetry too, if you like...I would just not advise sending that out to employers!)
Kind of related:
These sites don't show you how to sell yourself in one sentence, but they do talk about using social media to win you a job, which after last week's post on how it can lose you a job, I thought would be a positive list to include.
CV or not CV: Twitter tips
Does your Twitter handle belong on your resume?
Is Twitter the new CV?
Tweet yourself to a new job
Want a dream Job? Blog, Tweet or Youtube it!
I was helping a friend write a cover letter for a job application. He'd send me a draft, and I'd scan-read it and report back. Then he'd make some changes, send it back, and I'd do the same until either he or I was happy. More often than not I was telling him to cut something out, or reword it to make it shorter.
I think there is a habit amongst recent graduates to try to divulge information in incredibly convoluted language. It's a habit most likely picked up from reading complex academic journals, a habit that does not help when thrust into the job market.
So while I was waiting on another tightened redraft from my friend, I got thinking. I was trying to get him to make the first paragraph of his cover letter short, snappy, and easy to read. What else is short, snappy and easy to read? Tweets, of course.
So I set myself the task of writing my CV in a single Tweet.
There are services and sites devoted to using Twitter for jobhunting; here's a list of some of them, and here's another jobhunting site using Twitter. However, most of them involve normal full-sized CVs, and I'm not entirely convinced of their use (prove me wrong please, if you can!).
I wrote my Tweet CV and I was quite proud of its pith, until I found this competition run in January by workthing (workthing's blog is truly excellent by the way). You can find the winner here and also some honourable mentions and bad examples here. Mine turned out to be rather weak by comparison! I'm going to keep working on my Tweet CV; I could spend a whole lot of time making it perfect.
In of itself, a Tweet CV might not be much use, but I still heartily recommend having a go at writing yours because it's a really good exercise in writing short, snappy, work profiles. The 140 character limit is a great motivator for using language creatively and effectively.
I did then ask myself if this was a worrying degradation of language into soulless 140 character sentences. Is it a gross reduction of one's life into one line? Is this a grassroots introduction of Orwellian newsspeak?
My answer to all of these questions: Not at all. In my final year of high school I was awarded an A for my Advanced English portfolio, which had consisted only of one short poem and one piece of prose written almost entirely in AOL speak. Had Twitter existed in 2003 I probably would have done a piece based on that instead. The point is not to reduce the feeling, or the beauty of the language. The challenge is to compact it without losing meaning, beauty, or indeed originality.
Translating these ideas to the challenge of creating your own Tweet CV should help you to understand the purpose of a good cover letter.
(You could also try expressing your career in 10-line poetry too, if you like...I would just not advise sending that out to employers!)
Kind of related:
These sites don't show you how to sell yourself in one sentence, but they do talk about using social media to win you a job, which after last week's post on how it can lose you a job, I thought would be a positive list to include.
CV or not CV: Twitter tips
Does your Twitter handle belong on your resume?
Is Twitter the new CV?
Tweet yourself to a new job
Want a dream Job? Blog, Tweet or Youtube it!
Friday, 23 April 2010
Guidelines 4: Presenting Presence as a Present
Be really aware of your cyber footprint.
So, you called up about the advertised position and asked a few well thought of questions, handed in your CV and were polite to the door staff on your way in. Your CV shows you have great experience, and it's well laid out and typo-free. Great, your real-life impressions really are great. But how does your reputation stand online?
Chances are you are going to get googlestalked, so start ego-surfing and googling yourself and making sure you look just a good on screen as you do on paper. Just be careful. Could anybody find any tweets about how drunk you got, badly spelled blog posts, dodgy pictures from last Saturday night, potentially controversial outbursts on the comments page of your favourite news site, or posts on frequented internet forums that demonstrate you to be an intolerant bully. Are there any news stories about you? Do you have a profile on your current or past organisation's website?
Employers are looking out for this kind of stuff. I know people who've had to deal with repercussions from their social networking profiles. I know people who have had to sign disclaimers on application forms indicating which social networking sites they frequent, and accepting that these might be checked up on prior to/during/after application sifting.
I haven't had to sign a disclaimer like that, but I knew it would happen anyway. Late last year a former colleague (and current good friend) of mine sent me a facebook message that said:
"YOU: Your name is the most commonly searched for term on the organisation's website. I take it you're job hunting at the moment then!"
And it's nothing less than I expected. I should point out I wasn't still with that organisation while I was job hunting, but that might be something else to consider, if you're currently still employed but looking elsewhere.
I didn't expect my blog to get me a job (that's not why I started it) but I knew it could lose me any potential job. I know that prospective employers have read this very blog and followed me on Twitter and I even know how they found my information online (cheers, statcounter).
All that talk about employers using google to find out about their workers is true. Have a cyber spring clean if you need to. Have it now.
Because it seems to be that "public is the default" these days on web 2.0 sites, make sure you know exactly what privacy settings you have on any internet media you use, and if you use your real name or publish your email address. Make sure you know who you're friends with on facebook or any other social networking site and also what groups and discussions you've joined and participated in.
It's not a case of making everything private and deleting yourself from the internet, but it's just a case of making sure that first of all the information is employer-friendly, and also that it all adds up. If you've made the mistake of exaggerating your skills, experience or interests on your CV or in an interview, and the information online represents something else entirely, this can easily be picked up on and you could be left wondering why you never got that call back.
Basically, stalk yourself online, and make sure you what you find makes you look like the kind of person you'd like to work with.
Want to find out more?
How's your cyber footprint?
Job hunting grads need to tidy up their web presence.
Job hunting in the web 2.0 jungle.
Cyber vetting and your net rep.
Facebook and Twitter hazards.
And... to see how not to do it, there's always lamebook.
So, you called up about the advertised position and asked a few well thought of questions, handed in your CV and were polite to the door staff on your way in. Your CV shows you have great experience, and it's well laid out and typo-free. Great, your real-life impressions really are great. But how does your reputation stand online?
Chances are you are going to get googlestalked, so start ego-surfing and googling yourself and making sure you look just a good on screen as you do on paper. Just be careful. Could anybody find any tweets about how drunk you got, badly spelled blog posts, dodgy pictures from last Saturday night, potentially controversial outbursts on the comments page of your favourite news site, or posts on frequented internet forums that demonstrate you to be an intolerant bully. Are there any news stories about you? Do you have a profile on your current or past organisation's website?
Employers are looking out for this kind of stuff. I know people who've had to deal with repercussions from their social networking profiles. I know people who have had to sign disclaimers on application forms indicating which social networking sites they frequent, and accepting that these might be checked up on prior to/during/after application sifting.
I haven't had to sign a disclaimer like that, but I knew it would happen anyway. Late last year a former colleague (and current good friend) of mine sent me a facebook message that said:
"YOU: Your name is the most commonly searched for term on the organisation's website. I take it you're job hunting at the moment then!"
And it's nothing less than I expected. I should point out I wasn't still with that organisation while I was job hunting, but that might be something else to consider, if you're currently still employed but looking elsewhere.
I didn't expect my blog to get me a job (that's not why I started it) but I knew it could lose me any potential job. I know that prospective employers have read this very blog and followed me on Twitter and I even know how they found my information online (cheers, statcounter).
All that talk about employers using google to find out about their workers is true. Have a cyber spring clean if you need to. Have it now.
Because it seems to be that "public is the default" these days on web 2.0 sites, make sure you know exactly what privacy settings you have on any internet media you use, and if you use your real name or publish your email address. Make sure you know who you're friends with on facebook or any other social networking site and also what groups and discussions you've joined and participated in.
It's not a case of making everything private and deleting yourself from the internet, but it's just a case of making sure that first of all the information is employer-friendly, and also that it all adds up. If you've made the mistake of exaggerating your skills, experience or interests on your CV or in an interview, and the information online represents something else entirely, this can easily be picked up on and you could be left wondering why you never got that call back.
Basically, stalk yourself online, and make sure you what you find makes you look like the kind of person you'd like to work with.
Want to find out more?
How's your cyber footprint?
Job hunting grads need to tidy up their web presence.
Job hunting in the web 2.0 jungle.
Cyber vetting and your net rep.
Facebook and Twitter hazards.
And... to see how not to do it, there's always lamebook.
Monday, 19 April 2010
Guidelines 3: Two second rule
Imagine yourself as the man (or woman!) behind the desk. Crisp white shirt, smart tie, picture of your family smiling on your desk. On the desk is a messy pile of stapled sheets of white paper. Which one holds the key to your next employee of the month?
I think I read in a jobhunting book once that it is useful to imagine the process of hiring from the perspective of the employer. When you look at it, it can be just as gruelling for the employer as for the jobhunter.
To get an idea, WSJ have a good description of the hiring process here, and here's a checklist that any jobhunter could bear in mind when applying for work. Oh, and here is a useful blog that I'd bookmark, if I were you.
The employer might be spending a lot of money and time on the hiring process, because they want to make sure that they get the right person first time round. The more you can do to help your prospective employer read your application, the more they will like you. The more they like you...well, you catch my drift. So, after having made a good intial impression, you'll definitely want to make a good impression on your application.
And you've got just two seconds to make that good impression.
Is it really true that employers don't read CVs? Is the two-second scan a real thing?
I'm not going to pretend to be an HR expert or anything here, but I've sat on both sides of the jobhunting fence. This is purely anecdotal and there are lots of other resources available online that can say more about this phenomenon, so I'll give you just two key hints here.
But yeah, I'd say about two seconds is all I need to read your CV.
I can tell if you've read the advertisement/job description. I can tell if you have relevant experience. I can tell if you have the motivation. I can tell if you're underqualified or overqualified. And if I can, your employer can too.
Here are my hints to help you shine in those two seconds of fame:
1. Make your CV scan-friendly.
You need a clear and concise layout for your CV. Make use of whitespace and bullet points, only include directly relevant information and make sure that the points you want the employer to notice are the most obvious. Don't include rambling paragraphs with no clear indication of what information you want the employer to infer from reading it. You need to sign point everything (and you'll see that this relates really closely to hint number two).
For example, you might be really proud of your degree, or your knitting group, but if the job description calls for project management experience or analysis skills, then your degree and knitting group are less important.
Unless of course, you outline it something like this:
And I should add that it's okay not to have relevant experience, or if you don't have the right qualifications. If you can use language to apply the experience you do have to the specifics of the role, or can demonstrate that you understand exactly what the job requires and can prove that you have transferable experience, you might be okay.
2. Put some imitation in your application.
Keywords, keywords, keywords!
They can be the key to accessing the next stage of the process (groan).
The best trick I learned was to use the exact language of the job description in an application. If the application calls for "superior communication skills" don't write that you are "an excellent communicator" or that you "have demonstrable experience in communications"... you write that your experience/achievements demonstrate... what? You've guessed it, "superior communication skills."
Pick out the keywords from a job description and make a point of including them in your CV/cover letter.
This works on two levels. If your application is read by a computer, there are certain keywords the computer is searching for that will determine if you get through to the next round. If your application is read by a human being, it can subliminally encourage them to put your application into the 'interview' pile. Whether or not that's true, or whether that works, it can demonstrate that you have carefully scrutinised the description and submitted a well crafted, specific and relevant application, rather than a standard, generic CV copy.
I suppose, put simply, you are trying to rewrite the job description while putting your name on it. I'd add two extra hints here: First, do not add anything extra that the job description doesn't mention unless you really think it's relevant and relates to what they are looking for (e.g. don't tell your life story, don't try to explain why speaking four languages might be relevant unless they mention languages, don't say you can play an instrument). Second: don't apologise if you don't have the exact skills mentioned on the job description. Doing that just highlights your weak points.
This is a really basic introduction, but there is plenty of information about this kind of thing. Try these links for more:
10 resume mistakes. These mistakes unpack some of the points I've made here, and mistake number 8 relates to keywords. Ignore at your peril!
Passing the 3 second test. Hey, it's more generous than me, that's a whole second longer!
Is your resume ready for the 20-second scan? 20 seconds is even lengthier! I'll point out that in section one, about ensuring your application is spelling mistake free, they misname the font 'Arial' as 'Ariel'... Ha. But if nothing else, these sites prove that what I say is right on the money.
I think I read in a jobhunting book once that it is useful to imagine the process of hiring from the perspective of the employer. When you look at it, it can be just as gruelling for the employer as for the jobhunter.
To get an idea, WSJ have a good description of the hiring process here, and here's a checklist that any jobhunter could bear in mind when applying for work. Oh, and here is a useful blog that I'd bookmark, if I were you.
The employer might be spending a lot of money and time on the hiring process, because they want to make sure that they get the right person first time round. The more you can do to help your prospective employer read your application, the more they will like you. The more they like you...well, you catch my drift. So, after having made a good intial impression, you'll definitely want to make a good impression on your application.
And you've got just two seconds to make that good impression.
Is it really true that employers don't read CVs? Is the two-second scan a real thing?
I'm not going to pretend to be an HR expert or anything here, but I've sat on both sides of the jobhunting fence. This is purely anecdotal and there are lots of other resources available online that can say more about this phenomenon, so I'll give you just two key hints here.
But yeah, I'd say about two seconds is all I need to read your CV.
I can tell if you've read the advertisement/job description. I can tell if you have relevant experience. I can tell if you have the motivation. I can tell if you're underqualified or overqualified. And if I can, your employer can too.
Here are my hints to help you shine in those two seconds of fame:
1. Make your CV scan-friendly.
You need a clear and concise layout for your CV. Make use of whitespace and bullet points, only include directly relevant information and make sure that the points you want the employer to notice are the most obvious. Don't include rambling paragraphs with no clear indication of what information you want the employer to infer from reading it. You need to sign point everything (and you'll see that this relates really closely to hint number two).
For example, you might be really proud of your degree, or your knitting group, but if the job description calls for project management experience or analysis skills, then your degree and knitting group are less important.
Unless of course, you outline it something like this:
- analysis skills: gained through 'data analysis' module as part of degree, and through thorough research for degree thesis.
- project management experience: initiated and developed successful knitting group and coordinated several events to promote knitting as well as managing a charity knitting campaign that raised £X.
And I should add that it's okay not to have relevant experience, or if you don't have the right qualifications. If you can use language to apply the experience you do have to the specifics of the role, or can demonstrate that you understand exactly what the job requires and can prove that you have transferable experience, you might be okay.
2. Put some imitation in your application.
Keywords, keywords, keywords!
They can be the key to accessing the next stage of the process (groan).
The best trick I learned was to use the exact language of the job description in an application. If the application calls for "superior communication skills" don't write that you are "an excellent communicator" or that you "have demonstrable experience in communications"... you write that your experience/achievements demonstrate... what? You've guessed it, "superior communication skills."
Pick out the keywords from a job description and make a point of including them in your CV/cover letter.
This works on two levels. If your application is read by a computer, there are certain keywords the computer is searching for that will determine if you get through to the next round. If your application is read by a human being, it can subliminally encourage them to put your application into the 'interview' pile. Whether or not that's true, or whether that works, it can demonstrate that you have carefully scrutinised the description and submitted a well crafted, specific and relevant application, rather than a standard, generic CV copy.
I suppose, put simply, you are trying to rewrite the job description while putting your name on it. I'd add two extra hints here: First, do not add anything extra that the job description doesn't mention unless you really think it's relevant and relates to what they are looking for (e.g. don't tell your life story, don't try to explain why speaking four languages might be relevant unless they mention languages, don't say you can play an instrument). Second: don't apologise if you don't have the exact skills mentioned on the job description. Doing that just highlights your weak points.
This is a really basic introduction, but there is plenty of information about this kind of thing. Try these links for more:
10 resume mistakes. These mistakes unpack some of the points I've made here, and mistake number 8 relates to keywords. Ignore at your peril!
Passing the 3 second test. Hey, it's more generous than me, that's a whole second longer!
Is your resume ready for the 20-second scan? 20 seconds is even lengthier! I'll point out that in section one, about ensuring your application is spelling mistake free, they misname the font 'Arial' as 'Ariel'... Ha. But if nothing else, these sites prove that what I say is right on the money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)