When hiring, finding job candidates with the right technical skills is the easy part. Bryan Goldberg offers advice on how to separate the merely adequate applicants from the all-stars:
[I]f a candidate can’t even tell you why they liked their last job, or what they got out of their college experience, or any of the million other questions that speak to their basic humanness… Then no amount of experience will make them valuable.
The way to boost your site’s Google ranking, Paul Boag says, is to write quality content that your customers want to link to. Don’t waste time with consultants’ SEO voodoo.
“[I]t all comes down to content,” he writes. “If you create great content, people will link to it, and Google will improve your placement. It really is that simple.”
Seth Godin says non-profits need to be more innovative, which means they need to be more willing to accept failure:
Go fail. And then fail again. Non-profit failure is too rare, which means that non-profit innovation is too rare as well. Innovators understand that their job is to fail, repeatedly, until they don’t.
This is absolutely right. A non-profit group should do everything it can to better advance its mission. That may mean trying new and better ways to be even more effective. Fear of failure is the surest way to maintain the status quo.
Here is a typical problem: A passenger on the sixth floor wants to descend. The closest car is on the seventh floor, but it already has three riders and has made two stops. Is it the right choice to make that car stop again? That would be the best result for the sixth-floor passenger, but it would make the other people’s rides longer.
For Ms. Christy, these are mathematical problems with no one optimum solution. In the real world, there are so many parameters and combinations that everything changes as soon as the next rider presses a button. In a building with six elevators and 10 people trying to move between floors, there are over 60 million possible combinations—too many, she says, for the elevator’s computer to process in split seconds.
Megan McArdle:
As far as I can tell, small businesses viewed Groupons largely as the former: you give away your product near cost, and gain new customers from Groupon’s huge mailing list.
Anecdotally, Groupon’s salespeople in fact encouraged businesses to give their product away at a loss in order to attract new consumers. By lowering the cost of trying your restaurant or salon, the theory ran, you could win new business that you wouldn’t otherwise have gotten.
The problem is that for consumers, it seems mostly to have been about price discrimination; people used Groupons to buy something that they wouldn’t buy at full price. So while your Groupon deal brought in a huge stampede of new customers, those customers were either too cheap, or too poor to spend a bunch of money at your business. Restaurants, who were supposed to be one of the core businesses for daily deals, complained that Groupon customers were disproportionately poor tippers who took up tables while carefully not spending any more than the face value of the Groupon–no drinks, no dessert. Then they never came back.