数据库表数据怎么恢复数据_恢复糟透了。 这是数据。

数据库表数据怎么恢复数据

by Aline Lerner

通过艾琳·勒纳(Aline Lerner)

恢复糟透了。 这是数据。 (Resumes suck. Here’s the data.)

I reviewed a solid year’s worth of resumes from engineers we had hired at TrialPay. The strongest signal I could find for whether we would extend an offer to an engineer: the number of typos and grammatical errors on their resume.

我回顾了我们在TrialPay聘请的工程师获得的稳定的简历价值。 我能找到的最强烈的信号是，我们是否会向工程师提供报价：他们的简历上出现错别字和语法错误的次数。

On the other hand, where people went to school, their GPA, and highest degree earned — these didn’t matter at all.

在另一方面，那里的人来到学校，他们的GPA，并最大程度的获得-这些并没有在所有问题。

These results were pretty unexpected. They ran counter to how resumes are normally filtered. And they left me scratching my head about how good people really are at making value judgments based on resumes.

这些结果是出乎意料的。 他们与简历的正常过滤方式背道而驰。 他们让我scratch愧，人们真的很擅长根据简历做出价值判断。

So, I decided to run an experiment. I wanted to see how good engineers and recruiters actually were at resume-based candidate filtering.

因此，我决定进行一项实验。 我想看看实际的工程师和招聘人员在基于简历的候选人筛选方面到底有多好。

Going into it, I was pretty sure that engineers would do a much better job than recruiters. After all, engineers are technical. They don’t need to rely on proxies like recruiters do.

在此之前，我非常确定工程师会比招聘人员做得更好。 毕竟，工程师是技术人员。 他们不需要像招聘人员那样依赖代理。

But that’s not what happened at all. As it turned out, people are pretty bad at filtering resumes — across the board. After running the numbers, it began to look like resumes might not be a particularly effective filtering tool in the first place.

但这根本不是事实。 事实证明，人们对筛选简历很不满意-全面。 在计算完数字之后，开始看起来简历可能并不是一种特别有效的过滤工具。

建立 (Setup)

The setup was simple. I would:

设置很简单。 我会：

1. Take resumes from my collection.
   从我的收藏中获取简历。
2. Remove all personally identifying info (name, contact info, dates, etc.).
   删除所有个人身份信息(姓名，联系方式，日期等)。
3. Show them to a bunch of recruiters and engineers.
   向一群招聘人员和工程师展示他们。

4. For each resume, ask just one question: Would you interview this candidate?

   对于每张简历，只问一个问题： 您会面试这位候选人吗？

Essentially, each participant saw something like this:

本质上，每个参与者都看到以下内容：

If the participant didn’t want to interview the candidate, they’d have to write a few words about why. If they did want to interview, they also had the option of substantiating their decision, but, in the interest of not fatiguing participants, I didn’t require it.

如果参与者不想采访候选人，他们必须写一些关于原因的话。 如果他们确实想面试，他们也可以选择证实自己的决定，但是为了不使参与者感到疲劳，我没有要求。

To make judging easier, I told participants to pretend that they were hiring for a full-stack or back-end web dev role, as appropriate. I also told participants not to worry too much about the candidate’s seniority when making judgments, and to assume that the seniority of the role matched the seniority of the candidate.

为了使判断更加容易，我告诉与会人员假装他们正在招聘适当的全职或后端Web开发人员。 我还告诉参与者，在做出判断时不要太担心候选人的资历，并假设职位的资历与候选人的资历相匹配。

For each resume, I had a pretty good idea of how strong the engineer in question was, and I split resumes into two strength-based groups. To make this judgment call, I drew on my personal experience — most of the resumes came from candidates I placed (or tried to place) at top-tier startups. In these cases, I knew exactly how the engineer had done in technical interviews, and, more often than not, I had visibility into how they performed on the job afterwards.

对于每个简历，我都非常了解所讨论的工程师的实力，然后将简历分为两个基于强度的小组 。 为了做出这样的判断，我借鉴了我的个人经验-大多数简历来自我在顶级初创公司中放置(或尝试放置)的候选人。 在这些情况下，我确切地知道了工程师在技术面试中的工作方式，而且，在很多情况下，我对他们随后在工作中的工作情况一目了然。

The remainder of resumes came from engineers I had worked with directly. The question was whether the participants in this experiment could figure out who was who just from the resume.

其余的简历来自与我直接合作的工程师。 问题是该实验的参与者是否可以从简历中找出谁是谁。

At this juncture, a disclaimer is in order. Certainly, someone’s subjective hirability based on the experience of one recruiter is not an oracle of engineering ability. With the advent of more data and more rigorous analysis, perhaps these results will be proven untrue. But, you gotta start somewhere.

此时此刻，免责声明已经准备就绪。 当然，根据一个招聘者的经验得出的某人的主观可雇佣性并不是工程能力的预言。 随着更多数据和更严格分析的出现，也许这些结果将被证明是不真实的。 但是，您必须从某个地方开始。

That said, here’s the experiment by the numbers:

也就是说，这是通过数字进行的实验：

• I used a total of 51 resumes in this study. 64% belonged to strong candidates.

  在这项研究中，我总共使用了51张简历 。 64％属于强候选人。

• A total of 152 people participated in the experiment.

  共有152人参加了该实验。

Each participant made judgments on 6 randomly selected resumes from the original set of 51, for a total of 716 data points.

每个参与者对从原始51个集合中随机选择的6个简历进行判断 ，总共716个数据点 。

(This number is less than 152*6=912 because not everyone who participated evaluated all 6 resumes.)

(此数字小于152 * 6 = 912，因为并非所有参与评估的人都对这6张简历进行了评估。)

If you want to take the experiment for a whirl yourself, you can do so here.

如果您想自己尝试一下实验，可以在这里进行 。

Participants were broken up into engineers (both engineers involved in hiring and hiring managers themselves) and recruiters (both in-house and agency). There were 46 recruiters (22 in-house and 24 agency) and 106 engineers (20 hiring managers and 86 non-manager engineers who were still involved in hiring).

参与者分为工程师(参与聘用和聘用经理本身的工程师)和招聘人员(内部和代理机构)。 有46名招聘人员(22名内部人员和24名代理商)和106名工程师(20名招聘经理和86名非经理工程师仍在招聘中)。

结果 (Results)

So, what ended up happening? Below, you can see a comparison of resume scores for both groups of candidates.

那么，最终发生了什么？ 在下面，您可以看到两组候选人的简历得分比较。

A resume score is the average of all the votes each resume got, where a ‘no’ counted as 0 and a ‘yes’ vote counted as 1. The dotted line in each box is the mean for each resume group — you can see they’re pretty much the same. The solid line is the median, and the boxes contain the 2nd and 3rd quartiles on either side of it.

简历得分是每个简历获得的所有选票的平均值，其中“否”记为0，“是”票记为1。每个框中的虚线是每个简历组的平均值-您可以看到它们几乎一样。 实线是中位数，并且方格的两侧分别包含第二和第三四分位数。

As you can see, people weren’t very good at this task. What’s pretty alarming is that scores are all over the place, for both strong and less strong candidates.

如您所见，人们并不是很擅长此任务。 令人震惊的是， 无论是强者还是弱者， 分数都遍地开花。

Another way to look at the data is to look at the distribution of accuracy scores. Accuracy in this context refers to how many resumes people were able to tag correctly out of the subset of 6 that they saw. As you can see, results were all over the board.

查看数据的另一种方法是查看准确性得分的分布。 在这种情况下， 准确性是指人们能够从他们看到的6个子集中正确标记出多少张简历。 如您所见，结果全面。

On average, participants guessed correctly 53% of the time. This was pretty surprising. At the risk of being glib, according to these results, when a good chunk of people involved in hiring make resume judgments, they might as well be flipping a coin.

平均而言，参与者有53％的时间正确猜对了。 这真是令人惊讶。 根据这些结果，冒着冒昧的风险，当一大批参与招聘的人做出简历判断时，他们不妨掷硬币。

What about performance broken down by participant group? Here’s the breakdown:

参与者分组的表现如何？ 细目如下：

• Agency recruiters — 56%
  代理商招聘人员-56％
• Engineers — 54%
  工程师-54％
• In-house recruiters — 52%
  内部招聘人员-52％
• Engineering hiring managers — 48%
  工程招聘经理— 48％

None of the differences between participant groups were statistically significant. In other words, all groups did equally poorly.

参与者组之间的差异均无统计学意义。 换句话说，所有群体的表现都一样差。

For each group, you can see how well people did below.

对于每个小组，您可以在下面看到人们的表现。

To try to understand whether people really were this bad at the task or whether perhaps the task itself was flawed, I ran some more stats.

为了尝试了解人们是否真的对这项任务很不好，或者任务本身是否有缺陷，我进行了一些统计。

One thing I wanted to understand, in particular, was whether inter-rater agreement was high. In other words, when rating resumes, were participants disagreeing with each other more often than you’d expect to happen by chance? If so, then even if my criteria for whether each resume belonged to a strong candidate wasn’t perfect, the results would still be compelling.

我想特别了解的一件事是， 评估者之间的协议是否很高。 换句话说，当评分恢复时，参与者之间的异议频率是否比您偶然发生的预期高？ 如果是这样，那么即使我关于每份简历是否属于强候选人的标准都不完美，结果仍然令人信服。

No matter how you slice it, if people involved in hiring consistently can’t come to a consensus, then something about the task at hand is too ambiguous.

无论如何分割，如果持续聘用的人员无法达成共识，那么眼下的任务就太模棱两可了。

The test I used to gauge inter-rater agreement is called Fleiss’ kappa. The result is on the following scale of -1 to 1:

我用来评估评分者之间协议的测试称为Fleiss'kappa 。 结果在-1至1的以下范围内：

• -1 perfect disagreement; no rater agrees with any other

  -1完全不同意； 没有评分者同意其他任何观点

• 0 random; the raters might as well have been flipping a coin

  0随机； 评级者也可能一直在掷硬币

• 1 perfect agreement; the raters all agree with one another

  1份完美协议； 评分者都同意

Fleiss’ kappa for this data set was 0.13. 0.13 is close to zero, implying just mildly better than coin flip. In other words, the task of making value judgments based on these resumes was likely too ambiguous for humans to do well on with the given information alone.

该数据集的Fleiss卡帕值为0.13。 0.13接近于零，这意味着比硬币翻转略胜一筹。 换句话说，基于这些简历进行价值判断的任务可能太含糊，以至于人类无法仅凭给定的信息就做好工作。

TL;DR Resumes might actually suck.

TL; DR简历实际上可能很烂。

一些有趣的模式 (Some interesting patterns)

In addition to the finding out that people aren’t good at judging resumes, I was able to uncover a few interesting patterns.

除了发现人们不擅长评估简历之外，我还发现了一些有趣的模式。

时间无所谓。 (Times didn’t matter.)

We’ve all heard of and were probably a bit incredulous about the study that showed recruiters spend less than 10 seconds on a resume on average. In this experiment, people took a lot longer to make value judgments. People took a median of 1 minute and 40 seconds per resume. In-house recruiters were fastest, and agency recruiters were slowest. However, how long someone spent looking at a resume appeared to have no bearing, overall, on whether they’d guess correctly.

我们都听说过，也许对这项研究有些怀疑， 该研究表明，招聘人员平均花费不到10秒的简历。 在这个实验中，人们花费了更长的时间做出价值判断。 人们每次简历平均花费1分钟40秒。 内部招聘人员最快，而机构招聘人员最慢。 但是，总的来说，某人花了多长时间看简历似乎对他们猜对了没有影响。

对于工程师和招聘人员而言，不同的事情至关重要。 (Different things mattered to engineers and recruiters.)

Whenever a participant deemed a candidate not worth interviewing, they had to substantiate their decision. Though these criteria are clearly not the be-all and end-all of resume filtering. If they were, people would have done better.

只要参与者认为候选人不值得面试，他们就必须证实自己的决定。 虽然这些标准显然不是恢复筛选的全部内容。 如果是这样，人们会做得更好。

It was interesting to see that engineers and recruiters were looking for different things.

有趣的是，工程师和招聘人员正在寻找不同的东西。

( I created the categories below from participants’ full-text rejection reasons, after the fact.)

(事实之后，我根据参与者的全文拒绝原因创建了以下类别。)

Incidentally, lack of relevant experience didn’t refer to lack of experience with a specific stack. Verbatim rejection reasons under this category tended to say stuff like “projects not extensive enough,” “lack of core computer science,” or “a lot of academic projects around Electrical Engineering, not a lot on the resume about programming or web development.”

顺便说一句， 缺乏相关经验并不意味着缺乏特定堆栈的经验。 此类逐字拒绝的原因往往是诸如“项目不够广泛”，“缺乏核心计算机科学”或“围绕电气工程的许多学术项目，而关于编程或Web开发的简历中没有很多”之类的东西。

Culture fit in the engineering graph denotes concerns about engineering culture fit, rather than culture fit overall. This could be anything from concern that someone used to working with Microsoft technologies might not be at home in a Ruby on Rails shop to worrying that the candidate is too much of a hacker to write clean, maintainable code.

工程图中的文化契合度表示关注的是工程文化契合度，而不是整体文化契合度。 可能是因为担心曾经使用Microsoft技术的人可能不在Ruby on Rails商店中，或者担心候选人太多了，无法编写干净，可维护的代码。

不同的小组在不同种类的简历上表现更好。 (Different groups did better on different kinds of resumes.)

First of all, and not surprisingly, engineers tended to do slightly better on resumes that had projects. Engineers also tended to do better on resumes that included detailed and clear explanations of what the candidate worked on.

首先，毫不奇怪，工程师倾向于在有项目的简历上做得更好。 工程师还倾向于在简历上做得更好，其中包括对候选人工作内容的详细清晰的解释。

To get an idea of what I mean by detailed and clear explanations, take a look at the two versions below (source: Lessons from a year’s worth of hiring data). The first description can apply to pretty much any software engineering project, whereas after reading the second, you have a pretty good idea of what the candidate worked on.

要通过详细清楚的解释了解我的意思，请看下面的两个版本(来源： 一年的数据招聘经验 )。 第一个描述几乎可以应用于任何软件工程项目，而在阅读第二个描述之后，您对应聘者的工作有了一个很好的了解。

Recruiters, on the other hand, tended to do better with candidates from top companies. This also makes sense. Agency recruiters deal with a huge, disparate candidate set while also dealing with a large number of companies in parallel. They’re going to have a lot of good breadth-first insight including which companies have the highest engineering bar, which companies recently had layoffs, which teams within a specific company are the strongest, and so on.

另一方面，招聘人员倾向于与顶级公司的候选人做得更好。 这也是有道理的。 代理商招聘人员处理大量不同的候选人，同时还同时处理大量公司。 他们将具有很多广度优先的见解，包括哪些公司的工程技术水平最高，哪些公司最近裁员，特定公司内的团队最强，等等。

简历没什么用 (Resumes just aren’t that useful)

So, why are people pretty bad at this task? As we saw above, it may not be a matter of being good or bad at judging resumes but rather a matter of the task itself being flawed — at the end of the day, the resume is a low-signal document.

那么，为什么人们在此任务上表现不佳？ 正如我们在上面看到的， 评判简历可能不是好事还是坏事，而是任务本身存在缺陷—归根结底，简历是一份低信号的文件。

If we’re honest, no one really knows how to write resumes particularly well. Many people get their first resume writing tips from their university’s career services department, which is staffed with people who’ve never held a job in the field they’re advising for.

老实说，没有人真正知道如何撰写简历。 许多人从他们大学的职业服务部门获得了第一份简历写作技巧，该部门配备了从未在所建议领域从事过工作的人员。

Hell, some of the most fervent resume advice I ever got was from a technical recruiter, who insisted that I list every technology I’d ever worked with on every single undergrad research project I’d ever done. I left his office in a cold sweaty panic, desperately trying to remember what version of Apache MIT had been running at the time.

地狱，我收到的一些最热烈的简历建议来自一位技术招聘人员，他坚持要求我列出我曾做过的每个本科研究项目中曾使用过的所有技术。 我满头大汗地离开了他的办公室，拼命想回想一下当时运行的Apache MIT版本。

Very smart people — who are otherwise fantastic writers — seem to check every ounce of intuition and personality at the door, then churn out soulless documents expounding their experience with the software development life cycle or whatever. They’re scared that sounding like a human being on their resume — or not peppering it with enough keywords — will eliminate them from the applicant pool before an engineer even has the chance to look at their resume.

非常聪明的人-否则会是出色的作家-似乎会检查门口的每一分直觉和个性，然后推出毫无生气的文档，以阐述他们在软件开发生命周期或其他方面的经验。 他们担心听起来像人的简历，或者没有给他们添加足够的关键词，这会在工程师甚至没有机会查看简历之前将他们从申请人库中删除。

Writing aside, reading resumes is a tedious and largely thankless task. If it’s not your job, it’s a distraction that you want to get over with so you can go back to writing code.

撇开写作来看，阅读简历是一项乏味且很大程度上不费力的任务。 如果这不是您的工作，那么这就是您想要分心的事情，因此您可以重新编写代码。

If reading resumes is your job, you probably have a huge stack to get through. So it’s going to be hard to do deep dives into people’s work and projects, even if you’re technical enough to understand them — and this is assuming they included links to their work in the first place.

如果阅读简历是您的工作，那么您可能需要大量经验。 因此，即使您有足够的技术来理解人们的工作和项目，也很难深入了解他们-这是假设他们首先包含了与他们工作的链接。

On top of that, spending more time on a given resume may not even yield a more accurate result, at least according to what I observed in this study.

最重要的是，至少根据我在本研究中观察到的情况，花更多时间在给定的简历上甚至可能不会产生更准确的结果。

如何修复程序顶部过滤 (How to fix top-of-the-funnel filtering)

Assuming that my results are reproducible and people, across the board, are really quite bad at filtering resumes, there are a few things we can do to make top-of-the-funnel filtering better.

假设我的结果是可重复的，并且整个人在筛选简历方面确实很差劲，我们可以做一些事情来使漏斗式筛选更好。

In the short term, improving collaboration across different teams involved in hiring is a good start. As we saw, engineers are better at judging certain kinds of resumes, and recruiters are better at others. If a resume has projects or a GitHub account with content listed, passing it over to an engineer to get a second opinion is probably a good idea. And if a candidate is coming from a company with a strong brand, but one that you’re not too familiar with, getting some insider info from a recruiter might not be the worst thing.

从短期来看，改善参与招聘的不同团队之间的协作是一个良好的开端。 如我们所见，工程师更擅长判断某些种类的简历，而招聘人员则更擅长其他种类的简历。 如果简历中包含列出了内容的项目或GitHub帐户，则将其传递给工程师以获得第二意见可能是个好主意。 而且，如果应聘者来自具有强大品牌的公司，而您却不太熟悉，那么从招聘人员那里获取一些内部信息可能并不是最糟糕的事情。

Longer-term, how engineers are filtered fundamentally needs to change. In my TrialPay study, I found that, in addition to grammatical errors, one of the things that mattered most was how clearly people described their work. In this study, I found that engineers were better at making judgments on resumes that included these kinds of descriptions.

从长远来看，从根本上过滤工程师的方式需要改变 。 在我的TrialPay研究中 ，我发现，除了语法错误外，最重要的事情之一是人们对工作的描述得多么清晰。 在这项研究中，我发现工程师更擅长对包含此类说明的简历做出判断。

Given these findings, relying more heavily on a writing sample during the filtering process might be in order. For the writing sample, I am imagining something that isn’t a cover letter. People tend to make those pretty formulaic and don’t talk about anything too personal or interesting. Rather, it should be a concise description of something you worked on recently that you are excited to talk about, as explained to a non-technical audience.

鉴于这些发现，可能会在过滤过程中更加依赖写作样本。 对于写作样本，我想象的不是求职信。 人们倾向于将这些公式化，而不是谈论任何过于个人化或有趣的事情。 相反，它应该是对您最近兴奋的话题所做的简要描述，就像对非技术人员的解释一样。

I think the non-technical audience aspect is critical, because if you can break down complex concepts for a layman to understand, you’re probably a good communicator and actually understand what you worked on. Moreover, recruiters could actually read this description and make valuable judgments about whether the writing is good and whether they understand what the person did.

我认为非技术受众方面至关重要，因为如果您可以分解复杂的概念以使外行理解，那么您可能是一个很好的交流者，并且可以真正理解自己的工作。 此外，招聘人员实际上可以阅读此说明，并对写作是否良好以及他们是否理解此人的工作做出有价值的判断。

Honestly, I really hope that the resume dies a grisly death. One of the coolest things about coding is that it doesn’t take much time or effort to determine whether someone can perform above some minimum threshold. All you need is the internets and a code editor.

老实说，我真的希望简历死于悲惨的死亡。 关于编码的最酷的事情之一是，不需要花费很多时间或精力来确定某人是否可以执行超过最低阈值的操作。 您需要的只是互联网和代码编辑器。

Of course, figuring out whether someone is great is tough and takes more time. But figuring out if someone meets a minimum standard — mind you the same kind of minimum standard we’re trying to meet when we go through a pile of resumes — is pretty damn fast.

当然，弄清某人是否出色很困难，而且需要更多时间。 但是弄清楚某人是否达到最低标准(当您浏览一堆简历时，请注意与我们试图达到的最低标准相同)是非常可笑的。

And in light of this, relying on low-signal proxies doesn’t make sense at all.

因此，仅依靠低信号代理完全没有意义。

I’m CEO and co-founder of interviewing.io, a platform where engineers can practice technical interviewing anonymously and find jobs based on interview performance rather than resumes.

我是CEO和联合创始人interviewing.io ，一个平台，让工程师可以练技术匿名采访，发现基础上的面试表现，而不是简历的工作。

Want to find a great job without ever touching your resume? Join interviewing.io.

想要找到一份出色的工作而不接触您的简历吗？ 加入采访 。

翻译自: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/resumes-suck-heres-the-data-ee88fcc27615/

数据库表数据怎么恢复数据