home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   rec.arts.sf.misc      Science fiction lovers' newsgroup      3,290 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 2,842 of 3,290   
   Rod Speed to Dimensional Traveler   
   Re: cases where SF has predicted scienti   
   25 Jan 14 17:36:19   
   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com   
      
   Dimensional Traveler  wrote   
   > J. Clarke wrote   
   >> robban@clubtelco.com wrote   
   >>> John F. Eldredge wrote   
   >>>> Your Name wrote   
      
   >>>>> Yep, I've done and be in numerous surveys too, and they're all   
   >>>>> completely worthless due to many varying reasons, mostly thanks to the   
   >>>>> idiotic and misleading way the "results" are reported.   
      
   >>>> My pet peeve with surveys is that the correct answer to a question is   
   >>>> often "none of the above", yet very few surveys allow this as a choice.   
   >>>> Online surveys, in particular, usually won't let you save the results   
   >>>> until you have chosen one of the answers the survey-writer supplied.   
      
   >>> Very true. I do a lot of online surveys, and in the box most of them   
   >>> provide for comments, I find myself writing time and time again "In   
   >>> Question X, you forced me to lie because...".   
      
   >> It's not just surveys.  I was helping somebody fill out an employment   
   >> application for a major hotel chain the other day and at one point it   
   >> has a section on previous employment and for each one it wants "reason   
   >> for leaving", with the choices being "Terminated, Promoted, Resigned,   
   >> Laid Off".  There's no option for "Still employed at this job" and it   
   >> won't submit the application until you pick one of the four.   
      
   >> In the previous section, dates of employment, there's an option "to   
   >> present" that one would expect to disable the "reason for leaving"   
   >> requirement, but it doesn't.   
      
   > And why would a company want to hire someone who has already proven they   
   > are disloyal enough to look for another job while they already have one?   
      
   Because they are well aware that many have been encouraged   
   to seek work elsewhere and have not actually been laid off, and   
   that some of the best people do keep looking for better jobs   
   when they have had to accept a less than ideal job in a very   
   tight labor market. And that plenty are on contract and that   
   all contracts end sometime.   
      
   >  (Keep in mind that the person tossing out applications is probably   
   > thinking "why would we hire anyone so bad they don't already have a   
   > job?".)   
      
   Only the fools.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca