fecak

If writing and film are your true interests, you probably need to find something that gets you from A (where you are now) to B (writing and film) and positions you for that transition down the road. If the programming is rusty, that limits your options there (at least in the short term). I certainly wouldn't start sweating about cognitive decline in your 40s and 50s - it's several years away, and I don't think it's as common as you're likely reading about recently.

I write resumes for a living and give career consultations. Maybe 5% of my clients come to me with similar issues - they have accomplishments and work history, but really struggle to identify direction for their next move. During the writing process, I ask questions about things they did, and I've typically found that the things people talk about the most (or in the most detail) tend to be the things they are best suited for.

Start writing about what you did at your startup - things you were ultimately responsible for, things you are comfortable 'taking credit' for, etc. When you've done that, look back and see if you can identify any themes in there.

Don't worry about the startup failing, there are literally millions of people with similar stories of being part of a failed startup or even several. Look ahead while also thinking about what you learned during the process - what would you do the same way, what would you do differently.

I ran a large Java Users Group for several years when Java was part of Sun Micro and a handful of years after the transition to Oracle. I used to get swag for my members and did giveaways at meetings. I can say that Sun sent me jackets, shirts, books, you name it - once it turned over to Oracle, I had a hard time getting much.

Nice piece. I write resumes and give career advice to a lot of tech professionals, and what you wrote about applying for jobs and "not being sure if a human ever read my resume" hit home for me.

I don't trust that the algorithms will identify qualified people, and I think job search is too important a thing to trust to algorithms. Getting discovered within the traditional application process (LinkedIn, Indeed, applying through company website) is difficult, because you have a large number of applications, and many of those are entirely unqualified. When I was recruiting, it wasn't unusual to get 50+% of applicants for a Senior Dev role that clearly had never written a line of code.

It's a needle in a haystack problem, and the bigger issue is that at some point is the recruiter going to keep investing time looking through the haystack to find a couple needles, or will the recruiter identify a better way to find a few needles?

Direct outreach to recruiters through LinkedIn is what I coach my clients to do, and I provide specific language for that messaging which is just as important. Recruiters like hearing from qualified candidates, and if the recruiter gets enough messages like this he/she doesn't have to wade through the resume pile. It's a clear win/win.

I don't think that is contradictory at all to what I wrote. I agree, many recruiters will try to send you out to every client and every job they have just to maximize their chances of a fee. Those recruiters should be avoided.

If you've gone on 30 interviews and never landed one job, that might be something you need to also consider and look inward. Going 0-for-30 is pretty unusual, unless you were accepting interviews for jobs you were clearly unqualified for.

They may not care about what languages and tools you are using when they hire you, but that's how they find you. They aren't on LinkedIn search for "Software Engineer" in most cases - at least I wasn't.

I said bad "hire", not bad "interview" - this was by design. If a company makes a bad hire, it's not (generally) because the candidate was presented, but rather a flaw in their interview and vetting process. The "how" of the candidate appearing is mostly irrelevant at that point.

I'd bet your LinkedIn isn't optimized at all for discovery. Populate a skills section with languages and tools you use, and you'll often see an immediate uptick.

A bad hire isn't on a recruiter unless they are basically lying to the employer about the hire's credentials or background, and even then it's the employer's job to vet what is being said.

The bigger ones, yes. Not boutique/niche firms, but large ones tend to churn.

All of my recruiting work was retained for the last 5-10 years I was in business, and I wasn't recruiting executives. I'm not saying that is the norm (it definitely isn't), and you are correct that senior developers will not be approached for executive roles.

Higher level candidates will probably attract higher level recruiters, because the amount of time to place someone making $100K is the same amount of time to place someone at $500K, with the only difference being a $25K fee for the first person and a $100K fee for the second.

The article's methods are actually quite good. You should ignore most of the recruiter contacts - if the recruiter approaches you for a job that is clearly not a fit for your background, I'd dismiss that person as either not respectful of your time or incompetent, and both are good reasons to ignore that person down the road.

If you're getting a fair amount of incoming traffic, you're already optimized for discovery, so that is working. Telling recruiters "I'm only looking for jobs that fit these parameters" and then paying attention to the ones that are respectful of that will work to start a relationship. I had some relationships for the entire 20 years I was in the business, and some of those people I didn't make a dime off for maybe 15 of those years.

Tenure is a good one, but can be misleading. There are a few ways to make money in recruiting. Being really good at it and ethical is one way, but there are also people who are unethical and it hasn't caught up with them.

I would always suggest looking at their tenure. A new recruiter doesn't have the depth of client relationships to be all that helpful, but most new recruiters are 'sourcers' and not handling the client side (they are responsible for researching and bringing in candidates).

Good question. The bad ones don't go away immediately. They go away eventually, and are quickly replaced with another round of new hires. So you have maybe 10% of the industry that stays for the long haul, and 90% is a revolving door of college grads.

There are probably other industries that have similar models where most of the workforce is newbies at all times, but I don't have an example that won't be dissected.