Can we have a filter to hide job postings without a certain Joel Test Score or certain Joel Test Score items checked off?

Basically, I don't want to have to sift through jobs without their Joel Test Score visible, a low test score, or certain items not checked.

For, example, there are two filters on the right hand side for: "Work remotely", "Offers relocation", we can add "Passes Joel Test with 9+", or "Shows Joel Test Results"

If not can we have this as a premium option?

Rough possible mockup:


I wish I could convince the team to remove the Joel Test score from job listings. I certainly do not support making it a search filter. Why? Not all of the items in the test are particularly applicable to all forms of development (especially web development) and some tests are more important than others for different developer styles.

The truth is, trusting an arbitrary score that isn't tailored to your specific needs is not going to help you find the right job for you. An 11 might as well be a 0 if you absolutely require quiet working conditions to work effectively. A 3 might be just fine if you want to be the second developer and 3rd employee of a start up.

Don't use the Joel score as a filter in your job search. Use it as a collection of questions to help you think about whether a job would be a good fit for you and ask the most important questions for you in the interview if the work you'll be doing sounds interesting.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Why can't you convince the team? Joel specifically states this feature is for separating the non-professional from the professional shops. I agree with what you've said to a point. Some people just want to show up to work, make a bit of money and then go home to their family. Some people need constant improvement in their lives. Some people need the filter, and some people like you don't. Your viewpoint to remove it is egocentric. Not having the feature seems like a cop out to get more job postings. It is not arbitrary, the questions are founded on top of Software Engineering science. – Derek Litz Dec 5 '13 at 17:42
  • And I also do not agree with finding a job based on "interesting". Work exists because it is hard and something that needs to be done to improve society, usually by specialized people. What I find interesting is learning, meeting people, conversing, experimenting, adventuring, and having fun with people, not work. Work is work, not fun play time. Why else would we be working then? Just go home if work doesn't feel like work, is my opinion :) – Derek Litz Dec 5 '13 at 18:11
  • @DerekLitz I think the data is valuable; the sum number is not valuable to anyone. I specifically state to use this data, and if we can answer some of those questions for you up front, all the better. Assuming this is totally necessary information, we do a horrible job of displaying it, because where it lies, the first thing you should do is check the score (at the bottom of the listing) if it has your important values before reading anything else. – Nick Larsen Dec 5 '13 at 19:09
  • 4
    Your second comment is just trolling. – Nick Larsen Dec 5 '13 at 19:09
  • 1
    Saying what I truly feel is trolling? Just because you do not understand where my opinion is coming from, does not mean I am trolling. It has been studied that developer productivity varies from 1x-10x, and these studies are old. If anything that gap is widening as tools are created for different types of people because demand is so high for this type of work. Easier tools are being invented and more efficient tools are being invented and the easy tools are often not the most efficient tools. If anything your comment was trolling, offensive to me, and certainly not founded upon. – Derek Litz Dec 5 '13 at 20:25
  • 1
    Do you not believe that some people would rather achieve at least the 10x productivity (possibly more) then take longer breaks, rather then have a ton of fun at work? I know the the latter exists, I am not saying it doesn't. But you seem the claim the former does not. – Derek Litz Dec 5 '13 at 20:26
  • 1
    That is exactly what I do, I check the score, and I check a to see if a few I really need are satisfied. I agree the score by itself might not be the best thing to filter on, but it is better then nothing. I was getting fed up scrolling to the bottom and seeing no scores at all, over and over again. The bottom is not that bad for usability, it is easy to scroll to the bottom and bounce back to the top. Most people are probably like yourself, and care more about reading the job posting. So your design is correct IMO. – Derek Litz Dec 5 '13 at 20:30
  • @Derek so you seriously think that fulfilling the Joel Test score automatically equates 10x productivity? And that companies that don't fulfill it are automatically less productive, and "fun" oriented? That's an incredibly narrow view of a very complex and diverse profession. The Joel Test should be supporting data, not a filter criterion. Just like high SO reputation can be supporting data when evaluating a candidate's competence - but it's far from being a reliable metric. If you put too much emphasis on metrics, people will optimize for those metrics - with often craptacular results – Pekka Dec 5 '13 at 20:50
  • ... that said, on the other hand, if a user absolutely wants to filter out employers that don't publish their Joel Test (as silly as that may be), why not let them. – Pekka Dec 5 '13 at 20:51
  • 5
    @Pekka - because if you put it in, people will think it's important. Actually, a better bet would be something like an OKCupid preference-matching thing. As part of your profile, you declare which of the questions are critical to you, which are of moderate importance, which are of some importance, and which you don't care about (possibly even letting you say that you explicitly don't want one or more of them). Then let it do a quick calculation on how well the opening in question fits you, and let you filter on that score. Of course, this is more effort, and more processing cycles. – Ben Barden Dec 5 '13 at 21:02
  • 1
    @DerekLitz "and good people will do the things in the Joel Test, IMHO." - are you saying that it's a significant indicator of morality? Are you saying that the Joel-Test-Positive answer is the better answer in all circumstances? I'm not sure quite what you're saying here, but it seems deeply suspect. Please clarify? – Ben Barden Dec 5 '13 at 21:07
  • 1
    @Derek yeah, I don't disagree with that assumption. Nor with the idea that the Joel Test is useful. I don't think anyone wants to work for a place that doesn't use Version Control. I'm just against codifying it into a filter, because that suggests a place with a score of 12 is automatically and inherently better and more productive than one with 9. ... but the request of filtering out shops that don't publish their results at all, I can get behind. :) – Pekka Dec 5 '13 at 21:14
  • 1
    @Pëkka That is the best argument for not having the filter I've seen. We certainly do not want to exclude companies that are a good fit for some people outright. So the real question is: How do we cater to people who care about the Joel Test, people who do not, and companies who do not pass the Joel Test (and we want to because they all add value in the end), without communicating that the Joel Test is all important? – Derek Litz Dec 5 '13 at 21:17
  • 2
    Only 37% of our job listings created in the past year answered questions on the Joel test. So attempting to filter on it would automatically exclude 63% of all jobs (and thousands of companies). The data doesn't support the notion that companies which don't fill it out are a bad fit. What it would more likely do is trick you into believing the results are more relevant to you, when they probably aren't, and that is a good reason not to provide the feature. Essentially we would be making it more difficult for you to find a job, while, ironically, making you feel like we're being helpful. – Bret Copeland Dec 5 '13 at 21:20
  • 1
    @BenBarden we do outreach to companies in order to try to help them improve their job listings, and the Joel Test is certainly something we could push. The question is whether it is really that useful. As has been pointed out, many of the questions are either a given (source control), or not relevant to all environments (hallway usability testing, when you're team is remote). The fact that we publish a score which implies a ranking system may even discourage companies from posting when they can't check 10-12 of the boxes, even though they might have checked the one most important to you. – Bret Copeland Dec 5 '13 at 21:40

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .