Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:5/23/2011
Last Login:5/31/2016
Content Thumbs: 4 total,  14 ,  18
Comment Thumbs: 483 total,  626 ,  143
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 147 Comments: Faptastic → Level 148 Comments: Faptastic
Content Views:2013
Total Comments Made:338
FJ Points:480

  • Views: 555
    Thumbs Up 5 Thumbs Down 0 Total: +5
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 01/27/12
    contradiction? contradiction?
  • Views: 454
    Thumbs Up 4 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +3
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 05/23/11
    still doing hard shit still doing hard shit
  • Views: 1284
    Thumbs Up 3 Thumbs Down 3 Total: 0
    Comments: 4
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 01/27/12
    cum rag cum rag
  • Views: 559
    Thumbs Up 1 Thumbs Down 5 Total: -4
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 05/24/11
    rapture rapture
  • Views: 550
    Thumbs Up 1 Thumbs Down 9 Total: -8
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 05/24/11
    random philosoraptor random philosoraptor

latest user's comments

#8 - no bathroom?  [+] (4 replies) 01/18/2014 on Mothers... +42
User avatar
#50 - hokeymon (01/18/2014) [-]
I don't think grandma can dig up the entire backyard to make the plumbing.
User avatar
#79 - chompysaurus (01/18/2014) [-]
But what about the sink? or does she just use the hose from the original house?
#106 - anon (01/18/2014) [-]
Sinks are good enough to pee in.. Bushes for pooping and sink again for hobo baths.
User avatar
#17 - ktbmnf (01/18/2014) [-]
im guessing that if she needs to use the bathroom she could just go to the main house, that is if the shed isn't too far. or a pail outside, you know.
#46 - that's.....pretty cool advice.  [+] (14 replies) 01/10/2014 on Advice to hiring managers -11
User avatar
#48 - snakefire (01/10/2014) [-]
No.. no it isn't..
User avatar
#49 - xxkelevraxx (01/10/2014) [-]
Hint: this already happens ;)
#50 - snakefire (01/10/2014) [-]
So did the holocaust.
Doesn't mean it was a good idea.
User avatar
#74 - yisumad (01/10/2014) [-]
No, it wasn't.
#53 - xxkelevraxx (01/10/2014) [-]
Say you have 2-3 job openings and 200 (or more) applicants. It takes too much time to read through all 200 resumes so you take 1/2 the stack and toss them. still too much? 1/2 it again and toss out those. down to 50. too much? Throw out 1/2 again. 25 applicants 10 good enough to interview. 2 get the job.

This DOES happen and it's common practice, even. get over it
User avatar
#61 - capslockrage (01/10/2014) [-]
Let's just stop you here, you're a fucking moron that can't get a simple point, didn't have to read all of your comment either.
#60 - xcoreyx (01/10/2014) [-]
But that's completely idiotic. You could be throwing away the best 5 applicants without even giving them a chance. I mean seriously, you don't have to thoroughly read through every single one. Just start with a quick scan, eliminate the ones that stick out as unqualified/not right for the job, and the continue to narrow it down.
User avatar
#58 - amuzen (01/10/2014) [-]
A better way to do it would be to only accept a certain of amount of resumes that you have to time to read then you read them all once dividing them all into 5 piles.
pile 1, definitely not
pile 2, red mark, doesn't look good
pile 3, no comment, didn't stand out (Should be rare)
pile 4, green mark, looks great
pile 5, final people you interview
then you read the ones in piles 1-3 again and again up to 5 times, every time a resume gets 3 green marks it goes in the final pile, every time a resume gets 3 red marks it goes into the disqualified file.

Assuming you spend 5-10 minutes reading a resume (which is actually quite a gratitous amount of time) and you accept no more than 50ish you shouldn't end up spending more than a couple of hours doing this and considering choosing the right crew is one of the most important parts of management it's easily one of the most worthwhile expenditures of time.
#54 - snakefire (01/10/2014) [-]
I know it's done, and I know why it's done, but its still an inefficient and ineffective method, not to mention unfair.

A business is only as strong as its employees, so you want the best of the best. That is not how you get the best.
User avatar
#55 - xxkelevraxx (01/10/2014) [-]
I know it's maddening. but could you imagine the time it takes to fine-tooth comb that many resumes? Then, not to mention, interview 'the cream of the crop' from said resumes. lets say of 200 applicants 20% were good enough to receive an initial interview. that's 40 people and when the average interview could range anywhere from 30 mins to an hour or more. that's around 40 hours (averaging). You then have to take into consideration the time frame that may be imposed to hire someone new and further more this will have to be done with either one single person (to ensure an consistent result and judgement) or a collective of people to agree and collaborate and compromise on "the best applicant" either way one resource or another is stretched too thin.

I could go on and on about this. is it fair? no. is it "the best" practice? that's debatable and all depends on who you talk to.
User avatar
#63 - supervillian (01/10/2014) [-]
I forone can see your point,while might not everyone will do it. At least snakefire stopped that mascot bullshit.
#64 - snakefire (01/10/2014) [-]
I still do it, just not everywhere or as often because I've gotten tired of all my mascots and haven't found a good replacement yet.
User avatar
#65 - supervillian (01/10/2014) [-]
I'm just saying a lot of users find it annoying. I watch anime and all,but I don't think I would do that.
#66 - snakefire (01/10/2014) [-]
Well a lot of users can stuff it up their ass.

I'm normally an accommodating guy. I'll be the first person to try to avoid annoying people. But when it comes to expressing myself, I'm not gonna NOT do it.

Its pointless to be upset about something like that. It's a character I chose to represent me. I frankly, do not see why its something to get so burnt over.