30 нояб. 2008 г.
25 нояб. 2008 г.
JavaBlackBelt interview
Had a nice interview with a guy making a research for JavaBlackBelt. He said it's a course work, so I agreed for an interview. Not surprisingly, I had no idea what to say on most of the topics he'd raised, so it's kinda interesting to digest my thoughts after the interview.
First, there was a set of standard questions about my education, degree, and position. Well, I'm a BSc, work for DataArt Solutions, Inc, and my position called Alf — I do whatever I can do, and don't bother choosing a proper name for a position. Next, we turned to a certification part, and that's what was interesting here. Personally, I certify for fun and to tickle my ego; I don't believe in employment opportunities or better salary.
What's cool about certifications is that if you want to succeed, you'd better get a book and review the whole field you're going to certify at. This step reveals all the dark spots of your knowledge, so you will be forced to review the dark areas. The problem is, the skills you get this way are not the skills you've used in the real life, so they won't last long; hence, be aware, and be really careful.
There was an interesting question on the contribution points; as you probably know, JavaBlackBelt members use contribution points to "pay" for the exams. You earn contribution points when you author questions, suggest improvements for questions, or comment on others' questions. This creates some interesting use cases I'll cover later, but the main idea is pretty much clear: in order to use the service, you must contribute, commit your time and knowledge to the site. That is, contribution points are the measure of your contribution. When you add paid tests, you make the life easier for busy or not-too-innovative guys (myself, I hate inventing new questions when where already are lots of perfectly known questions open). Still, paying for contribution points is an interesting idea — one I'd like to review in details.
So what's wrong about paid contribution points? Let's imagine I'm a paid user, and I'm paying the staff so what they could maintain the site, pay their hosting provider, etc. I do indeed contribute to the site. But the problem is, it's an "easy" contribution: I don't spend my time on it, I don't use my brain or anything — just swipe my card. Yeah I did for sure spend some time to earn my money, but it's not a direct commitment, not something community would appreciate: they simply don't know whether I commit anything to get that money, so they can't possibly know whether I've commit or not. Hence the contribution points loose their credibility, they're not a measure of contribution anymore.
On the other hand, paid tests are perfectly okay by me, as long as you pay for the service and not for the imaginary currency named "contribution points". The tests you've passed are not a measure of your commitment; rather, it's a measure of your knowledge, and I do respect your knowledge regardless of the way you paid for the tests.
Sponsored accounts are harder to argue about: I wasn't sponsored by any company so far, so I'm not aware of the feeling one could have in this case; and community is all about feelings. Still, I don't really see the profit for a sponsor, so I tend to feel some trap in the sponsored test and stay away from these.
As of referrals, I'd like to hear your opinion. I'm completely lost here. On one hand, getting new people to the community site is a contribution. On the other hand, I would like to see people who want to use the site rather than people I've cajoled into using one. What do you think?
First, there was a set of standard questions about my education, degree, and position. Well, I'm a BSc, work for DataArt Solutions, Inc, and my position called Alf — I do whatever I can do, and don't bother choosing a proper name for a position. Next, we turned to a certification part, and that's what was interesting here. Personally, I certify for fun and to tickle my ego; I don't believe in employment opportunities or better salary.
What's cool about certifications is that if you want to succeed, you'd better get a book and review the whole field you're going to certify at. This step reveals all the dark spots of your knowledge, so you will be forced to review the dark areas. The problem is, the skills you get this way are not the skills you've used in the real life, so they won't last long; hence, be aware, and be really careful.
There was an interesting question on the contribution points; as you probably know, JavaBlackBelt members use contribution points to "pay" for the exams. You earn contribution points when you author questions, suggest improvements for questions, or comment on others' questions. This creates some interesting use cases I'll cover later, but the main idea is pretty much clear: in order to use the service, you must contribute, commit your time and knowledge to the site. That is, contribution points are the measure of your contribution. When you add paid tests, you make the life easier for busy or not-too-innovative guys (myself, I hate inventing new questions when where already are lots of perfectly known questions open). Still, paying for contribution points is an interesting idea — one I'd like to review in details.
So what's wrong about paid contribution points? Let's imagine I'm a paid user, and I'm paying the staff so what they could maintain the site, pay their hosting provider, etc. I do indeed contribute to the site. But the problem is, it's an "easy" contribution: I don't spend my time on it, I don't use my brain or anything — just swipe my card. Yeah I did for sure spend some time to earn my money, but it's not a direct commitment, not something community would appreciate: they simply don't know whether I commit anything to get that money, so they can't possibly know whether I've commit or not. Hence the contribution points loose their credibility, they're not a measure of contribution anymore.
On the other hand, paid tests are perfectly okay by me, as long as you pay for the service and not for the imaginary currency named "contribution points". The tests you've passed are not a measure of your commitment; rather, it's a measure of your knowledge, and I do respect your knowledge regardless of the way you paid for the tests.
Sponsored accounts are harder to argue about: I wasn't sponsored by any company so far, so I'm not aware of the feeling one could have in this case; and community is all about feelings. Still, I don't really see the profit for a sponsor, so I tend to feel some trap in the sponsored test and stay away from these.
As of referrals, I'd like to hear your opinion. I'm completely lost here. On one hand, getting new people to the community site is a contribution. On the other hand, I would like to see people who want to use the site rather than people I've cajoled into using one. What do you think?
Подписаться на:
Сообщения (Atom)