|
Post by mamaru on Jun 21, 2016 17:49:51 GMT -5
My take is that Crapland traditionally has referred to those very few locations where there have been lots of new hires who are willing to go there to get on board, but then transfer out ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jun 21, 2016 20:31:49 GMT -5
So are you trying to say that the term "Crapland" will no longer be used by the 2016 testers?
No, just that " Crapland" means different locations to different applicants. Some will swear NY is Crapland and some will say Tupelo is Crapland. It all evens out so that all locations have somewhat equal number of persons willing to start tomorrow at that location. Sorry Gary, I don't know how to create the little TM. But I did use Tupelo to ensure that Funky will quote this and ensure you receive any additional royalty. Exactly. Bayou gets another mark. He is well ahead of the others in his newbie class. But don't let it go to your head, Bayou, you can slip very easily! He who is on top today, can be on the bottom tomorrow. Just like the rookie class on an early 90 man NFL roster. There can be tough times ahead. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jun 22, 2016 7:14:19 GMT -5
Is July done?
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jun 22, 2016 7:47:51 GMT -5
No, just that " Crapland" means different locations to different applicants. Some will swear NY is Crapland and some will say Tupelo is Crapland. It all evens out so that all locations have somewhat equal number of persons willing to start tomorrow at that location. Sorry Gary, I don't know how to create the little TM. But I did use Tupelo to ensure that Funky will quote this and ensure you receive any additional royalty. Exactly. Bayou gets another mark. He is well ahead of the others in his newbie class. But don't let it go to your head, Bayou, you can slip very easily! He who is on top today, can be on the bottom tomorrow. Just like the rookie class on an early 90 man NFL roster. There can be tough times ahead. Pixie. My wife will assure you that my ability to slip up exceeds your ability to build doghouses.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 22, 2016 8:06:21 GMT -5
I would say if we don't hear anything today we are done. I am holding out some hope that there will be calls today.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 22, 2016 8:25:17 GMT -5
I agree with Gaidin, though it's hard to tell. The only time I recall contemporaneously knowing for certain they had finished was when an esteemed Board member in reporting her offer informed us Bob had told her she was the caboose.
|
|
|
Post by burwell on Jun 22, 2016 10:40:40 GMT -5
As things remain frozen in time, here's some fun math to ponder...
107 offers, with 35 to go, as of last Thursday evening means they had put out 72 offers at that time.
7 reported declinations of 72 offers means 65 were accepted, and a decline rate of 10.3%.
Applying the same decline rate to the remaining 35 offers makes 3.6 declines, rounding up to 4, means 31 more acceptances.
65 + 31 = 96 acceptances expected, total.
Poll rate on the board is estimated at 80% of actual, per board sources.
80% of 96 is 76.8. Rounding up, 77.
As of 11:40 AM today, 70 NORs reported.
Meaning we should see 6-7 more NORs reported/hires indicated before hiring is complete.
However, we already have 80 reported city hires, or right about the 80% mark for actual hires, and we have Bob saying he'd be done early this week (i.e., it is turning into midweek pretty fast here, folks).
Draw your own conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by owl on Jun 22, 2016 10:59:08 GMT -5
Actually, LL2, there is competition for all of the locations, with about the same number of applicants for all cities. I did a thread on this a few weeks ago. So, just because a location is not perceived as popular, there is still a significant number of candidates willing to go to that location. Pixie. I don't even understand what "popular" location is. Everybody has a different perspective of what is a desired location and thus, as indicated in the thread to which Pixie refers, there is a broad applicant pool for every location.
I think "popular"/"crapland" are not meant as value judgments on the cities themselves - well, not by me anyway although I'm betting certain New Yorkers do given that infamous map that shows the world ending at the Hudson River. Rather those terms mainly just reflect the logical fact that register-wide more people are going to have NYC (pop. 10,000,000) et al. on their GAL than Middlesboro (pop. 10,000) et al. Now, there are enough people with wide-open GALs that when OPM goes to create cert lists, they are able to generate lists of roughly the same length for each city - I think it was reported that each list for this round was about 75 people long? It's a function of how many positions SSA tells OPM it wants to hire for, as I understand it. But undoubtedly the NOR score it takes to be #75 on a "popular" list is higher than for a "crapland" list. I think that's all.
|
|
|
Post by raylan on Jun 22, 2016 11:34:17 GMT -5
I e-mailed Bob earlier and he got right back to me. It likely means nothing, but could be circumstantial evidence that the calls are at least at a lull if not over
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Jun 22, 2016 11:34:31 GMT -5
As things remain frozen in time, here's some fun math to ponder... 107 offers, with 35 to go, as of last Thursday evening means they had put out 72 offers at that time. 7 reported declinations of 72 offers means 65 were accepted, and a decline rate of 10.3%. Applying the same decline rate to the remaining 35 offers makes 3.6 declines, rounding up to 4, means 31 more acceptances. 65 + 31 = 96 acceptances expected, total. Poll rate on the board is estimated at 80% of actual, per board sources. 80% of 96 is 76.8. Rounding up, 77. As of 11:40 AM today, 70 NORs reported. Meaning we should see 6-7 more NORs reported/hires indicated before hiring is complete. However, we already have 80 reported city hires, or right about the 80% mark for actual hires, and we have Bob saying he'd be done early this week (i.e., it is turning into midweek pretty fast here, folks). Draw your own conclusions. Don't forget - we don't capture the entire population on the Board. This is only a percentage of the true numbers. There's people who've never heard of us, lurkers & members who don't vote the polls.
|
|
|
Post by burwell on Jun 22, 2016 11:38:29 GMT -5
Yeah, I already took that into account above, with the 80% rate.
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jun 22, 2016 12:11:17 GMT -5
I e-mailed Bob earlier and he got right back to me. It likely means nothing, but could be circumstantial evidence that the calls are at least at a lull if not over It's not. It's evidence of how great a ship the HR people run. Nothing more. Nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Jun 22, 2016 12:38:08 GMT -5
I e-mailed Bob earlier and he got right back to me. It likely means nothing, but could be circumstantial evidence that the calls are at least at a lull if not over It's not. It's evidence of how great a ship the HR people run. Nothing more. Nothing less. It's also evidence of how good B*b is -- whenever I emailed him, I received a prompt response.
(I think there have been requests to not post HR names on the Board)
|
|
|
Post by raylan on Jun 22, 2016 14:41:55 GMT -5
I believe it was not full names. I know that his name has been used ad nauseum in this particular thread. That is why I felt comfortable using it.
|
|
|
Post by Serious, J. on Jun 22, 2016 18:06:31 GMT -5
Stating the obvious:
Seems as if they are done with the June/July cert.
|
|
|
Post by beenlurking on Jun 22, 2016 18:19:46 GMT -5
Stating the obvious: Seems as if they are done with the June/July cert. Seriously, are you serious? I joke. Yes, looks like.
|
|
|
Post by wingnut on Jun 22, 2016 19:21:27 GMT -5
Somebody had to say it. The silence was getting to me.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Jun 22, 2016 19:38:08 GMT -5
Well this lull in hiring has me itching to engage in some mischief. Maybe I will start a new thread to discuss the answer choices to the SJT sample questions. I wonder if Pixie is at dinner? Edit Note by Pixie: I wonder too? Pixie
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jun 22, 2016 19:48:27 GMT -5
I believe it was not full names. I know that his name has been used ad nauseum in this particular thread. That is why I felt comfortable using it. Yes, the request came from two of the women in personnel whose full names were used, as well as their telephone numbers. I know one of the women and find her to be a very reasonable person. In light of her reasonable request, I deleted reference to both of them, as well as their telephone numbers. And Raylan is correct, that name has been mentioned so many times that he has become a fixture on this board, as well as his partner in making the calls. I first met him during my baby judge school and think he is one of the most competent personnel specialists with the agency. Should either of them take offense, we will reevaluate the situation. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Jun 22, 2016 20:17:57 GMT -5
If you're here, who's watching the Moors?
|
|