Recruited means enlisted, hired. She was never hired, she was contacted by recruiters and interviewed. "Recruited" doesn't mean "contacted by recruiters" it means hired to do work. Recruiter - who hires/searches for "recruits". Recruit is a person that was recruited not contacted by a recruiter.
Recruiters contacting someone is the recruiting -- the reaching out, telling them what a great company it is, getting them in for an interview, and so on. It's expanding the funnel of interviewees.
Hiring is actually making an offer. That decision is made by different people higher up, and not the recruiter.
Maybe it's different at different companies or industries, but this is my whole experience with it across all sorts of companies in NYC.
(And in response to comment about the Merriam-Webster definition -- meanings change. Lots of tech lingo is different from dictionary definitions. You can say "let's offline this" in a meeting, and you won't find that definition in MW either.)
Well, there are grey areas to a lot of these words we're using in this discussion, as the meaning depends heavily on context and the background of the reader (or recipient).
>> Hiring is actually making an offer.
Is it? So when Github says "we're hiring", does that mean they're making an offer to everyone who contacts them? I tend to think most people will interpret that as "we're accepting applications for open positions".
Of course, if Github says "We're hiring Joe Smith", that's a completely different meaning because it's in a different context.
No, at it's most strict they haven't recruited someone until the company makes an offer. You can be recruited by multiple groups simultaneously. Happens all the time in college sports.
> No, at it's most strict they haven't recruited someone until the company makes an offer. You can be recruited by multiple groups simultaneously. Happens all the time in college sports.
Kinda depends on the context, doesn't it? The context can subtly change how the word is interpreted.
This is how I would interpret the various forms based on my own personal experience -- your interpretations may differ:
Recruiter is recruiting Joe -> Trying to hire Joe
Recruiter has recruited Joe -> Successfully hired Joe
Joe was recruited x times by Google --> Google tried to hire Joe x times
Joe was recruited x times by Google to do Y, Z --> Google assigned or hired Joe to do Y, Z x times
Joe is being recruited -> Someone is trying to hire Joe
Joe was being recruited by A, B, C -> A, B, C trying to hire Joe
We are recruiting Joe to be our representative for X -> Joe has been designated to be the representative
This sub-discussion reminds me of the issues with the phrase "job offer". To native English speakers, it is generally taken to mean "company has offered to hire you with a certain compensation package". To non-native English speakers, particularly it seems continental Europeans, it is generally taken to mean "company has offered to consider you for a job" (as opposed to you approaching them).
(Cue a stream of people claiming the thread is off-topic as an attempt to rationalise their downvotes, or down-voting me with equally fallacious reasoning)
Well, I respectfully disagree, for the reasons already stated (like most of the on-topic replies to that comment). Even the ones that agreed with pg suggested other mechanics to make up for the down-sides of the current system.
At the start of an innovation or social change the majority opinion is wrong, almost by definition. By having a single reward metric, and then structuring your system so that minority opinions get punished, you're creating a culture that's less free-thinking and more monocultural than it should be.
I can totally understand pg not wanting to change it, after all, he has a day job, but I don't think his 'up is agreement so down should be disagreement because symmetry' argument is worth much as stated.
After all, simple agreement has no worthwhile attribute other than a count of those who agree. Disagreement on the other hand is completely different, there are thousands of reasons why you might disagree with anything but the simplest of comments. Simply recording disagreement as a number is meaningless.
Edit: (I upvoted you for bothering to engage and find a link rather than just downvoting)
I agree with you, I was just pointing out the rules. I try not to worry about the point system here too much. Usually I just upvote everybody who replies to me.
That is only a subset of current common widespread usage.
For example, high school athletes who receive offers from more than one school are often said to have been recruited by all the schools.
Some examples from Wikipedia articles:
Magic Johnson: "Although Johnson was recruited by several top-ranked colleges such as Indiana and UCLA, he decided to play close to home".
Fred VanFleet: "At Auburn High School in Rockford, Illinois, he was an All-State player who was mostly recruited by mid-major basketball programs".
Marcus Dupree: "Dupree was heavily recruited by the major college football programs, and during the final month of the recruiting period, his high school coach, Joe Wood, answered more than 100 phone calls a day from colleges".
Marcus Mariota: "He was recruited by Oregon, Hawaii, Memphis, Utah, Oregon State, Washington, Arizona, Notre Dame, UCLA and USC but was only offered a scholarship by Memphis and Oregon".
Chris Taylor: "He was recruited to play college baseball by the University of Virginia and the College of William & Mary".
I'm kind of surprised that dictionary has missed this. I'm even more surprised that other dictionaries I checked also missed this.
The title implies that she was actually hired and let go 4 times - which doesn't make sense and would be a very awkward story. Being interviewed 4 times and passed on is a completely different story.
The recruiter, recruited her to join google. just as coaches from many different schools might recruit an athlete. One does not in fact have to be successful to have recruited someone.
