In decades of interviewing and hiring developers I have not seen an actual difference coming from posting salary ranges. I tried many different versions of this.
As a candidate, I do not apply to a thousand different places. I find 3-4 where I would want to work and I do my research before I even apply. I know what they can pay me before I get to talk to them.
As an interviewer I try to stay away from candidates that spray and pray. They probably don't care where they work -- usually a bad sign (except for positions where it truly doesn't matter). They probably also have a problem finding a job -- do I want to play the expensive game of finding out why?
When I meet the candidate the first time, I usually ask if they had a chance to look at our website. I have never hired a person that did not (somehow being disinterested prevents people from being good at what they are doing).
More than that, as a candidate your bargaining power is lowest at the beginning of the process and highest at the end when they had a chance to get to know you and really want to hire you.
And if this is not happening, don't get hired. If you made barely passable impression on your new boss but got hired because they needed a warm body in the chair, your career at the company is almost over before it got even started. First impressions matter and self-fulfilling prophecies are real.
And again, as an interviewer, posting salary ranges is a loose loose for me. If you have posted a range, there is couple of things happening. First, you are loosing ALL candidates that you would gladly pay more than the posted salary range, but now that they see the range they say "Meh" to your posting.
Second, everybody expects to get salary close to the top of the range and will be forever unhappy if they do not. So it is more like you have posted an exact salary you are paying and rather than be flexible you can now pretty much only decide to hire or not hire for this salary.
That is so terrific you are talented enough that out of 3-4 places you want to work, one of them hires you. This seems like terrible advice for most people though.
Even if 4 out of the 4 would hire you, the chances of getting your resume looked at and a callback is very slim - and that's because it's a numbers game on both sides. Popular roles often have 10's-100's of candidates.
> This seems like terrible advice for most people though.
But why?
Maybe reducing number of companies you apply to lets you focus much more on getting prepared and this leads to you standing out from other candidates?
Remember, you don't need a thousand jobs, you just need one. One that suits you.
If I am interviewer and I see a candidate that looks like he/she is prepared, did their research and genuinely care and want to work for the company I work for, don't you think this is huge advantage when comparing to other candidates, all else being equal?
And it is rare that all else is being equal. People who are genuinely prepared typically tend to do a lot of other things right.
The last time I posted a job ad, 100 seemingly qualified candidates responded within 2 days. I interviewed 7 of them, and 6 out of those 7 were more than qualified for the position. Having lived both sides of this, I feel hiring is very much a numbers game.
That advice only works if employees get to pick and choose. If for whatever reason you can't do that, focusing on particular companies besides the basics is pointless.
You also don't see the people who assume you don't pay well and "meh" you due to the lack of a range. If I see a firm that isn't well known with no range, why would I think they pay enough to make it worthwhile? Chances are we'll both waste time.
Your "loose-loose" problem can be easily addressed. Simply post two ads - one for a Developer, one for Senior Developer, Senior Developer range being x000 USD higer than dev range.
If mediocre candidates apply for Senior, tell them that you can only offer them the dev Position because they lack qualification x. Vice versa, you can "promote" great dev candidates to the senior dev position.
In the end, nobody forces you to hire both.
That's not how this works. If somebody responded to senior developer ad, they will never be happy if I give them regular developer job.
This is how human brain works.
If I started discussion with you at $150k and then negotiated down to $120k you will be permanently unhappy even if you could be happy if we started with $100k and then gave you upgrade to $120k without you even asking.
Same with bonuses. When people receive full bonus couple of times in a row they start treating it as part of their base salary and get very unhappy, feel resentful and cheated if they suddenly don't get it all.
> If somebody responded to senior developer ad, they will never be happy if I give them regular developer job.
Not true. Plenty of people apply for stretch positions they're not qualified to do. They may still accept a lower position, so long as it's established early on. I've hired people like this before.
How is the GP supposed to respond to this? You're not wrong that its a common mistake, but you're not adding anything to the conversation by remarking on it. And you're not actually asking for any help. Comments like this are generally not well-received on HN.
When I have internal conversation with myself, there is no difference between lose and loose. Probably because in my native language both pronunciations are indistinguishable.
And also at least partly because I mostly work with polite people who will not point out my language mistakes. And I never attended any classes to have a chance for a teacher to weed it out.
As to your comment about sloppiness/ignorance, you might be ignorant thinking that because you care it means everybody else also has to.
As a candidate, I do not apply to a thousand different places. I find 3-4 where I would want to work and I do my research before I even apply. I know what they can pay me before I get to talk to them.
As an interviewer I try to stay away from candidates that spray and pray. They probably don't care where they work -- usually a bad sign (except for positions where it truly doesn't matter). They probably also have a problem finding a job -- do I want to play the expensive game of finding out why?
When I meet the candidate the first time, I usually ask if they had a chance to look at our website. I have never hired a person that did not (somehow being disinterested prevents people from being good at what they are doing).
More than that, as a candidate your bargaining power is lowest at the beginning of the process and highest at the end when they had a chance to get to know you and really want to hire you.
And if this is not happening, don't get hired. If you made barely passable impression on your new boss but got hired because they needed a warm body in the chair, your career at the company is almost over before it got even started. First impressions matter and self-fulfilling prophecies are real.
And again, as an interviewer, posting salary ranges is a loose loose for me. If you have posted a range, there is couple of things happening. First, you are loosing ALL candidates that you would gladly pay more than the posted salary range, but now that they see the range they say "Meh" to your posting.
Second, everybody expects to get salary close to the top of the range and will be forever unhappy if they do not. So it is more like you have posted an exact salary you are paying and rather than be flexible you can now pretty much only decide to hire or not hire for this salary.