Re: Testing Candidates (was: The Results)

[Goober Writer <gooberwriter -at- yahoo -dot- com>]

> I disagree. Has it occurred to you that you did well
> on those writing
> tests because you can actually *write*? 

Yeah, the thought has occurred to me, but I *have*
been told I was born with a golden shovel in my hand
by several past instructors and employers. ;)

> The quality
> I see in a sampling of
> your posts suggests to me that you're a fine writer.

Aw, shucks. No need to get mushy now. ;)

> Perhaps it's
> something you do without thinking, but it's my
> experience that it's not a
> skill every would-be writer shares.

Well, that's a problem of a different nature... of
sorts... (keep reading)

> It's easy to be faked out by a writing sample. I
> think it is much harder
> to be faked out by a piece of writing done
> on-the-spot. 

Yes and no. There is a formula to writing a procedure.
The formula is:

Two steps forward, one step back.

That is:

1. Explain something.
2. Relate to previous and explain something.
3. Relate to previous and explain something.
etc...

If you can remember to do that, you can explain
anything effectively. In the case of a writing test,
the writer happens to be the SME. Given the writer has
all the info, they just need to follow the "formula"
to get it down on paper. Sure, you'll catch grammar
and style mishaps, but IMO, that's not what you should
be concerned with when evaluating a Technical Writer.
To me, the fact gathering and problem solving skills
are the ones to hammer on in the interview process.

> Yes, they may tell
> you what you want to hear, based on memorized tips
> picked up from
> interview books (that's how I answer the truly
> cliched interview
> questions). But I don't see how they can totally
> fake the ability to
> express themselves clearly about an unexpected
> topic. 

If they can sling it, they can write their way through
anything.

> That level of faking
> requires some good communication skills, which of
> course is what you want them to have anyway.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. The ability to correctly
explain a concept you are familiar with does not
indicate an ability to correctly research and explain
a topic you are not so familiar about. And it
certainly does not indicate how the research is
conducted.

At least from my experience, technical writing is
60-75% soft skill work.

> Major oversimplification. Your style guide will
> provide *usage* guidelines
> - if that's what you mean by "how they write." But
> if your "how" refers to
> "how good" or "how bad" they write, sorry - no style
> guide exerts that
> much control. How they think governs how they write.

Which is why you text them on how they think. ;)

> And here's an important point: how they write is not
> necessarily reflected
> in how they talk. I've seen amazingly little
> corollary between people's
> speaking skills and their writing skills, a
> realization that really
> surprised me when I first encountered it. So a
> quick-witted and clever
> interview subject may be a joy to talk to, but may
> still be a lousy writer.

You're right there. There is a difference. But, what
skill is easier to teach or assert influence over?

> because for them, the writing part is intuitive. It
> ain't necessarily so
> for everybody, as the person who started this thread
> has found!

Right. Um, ok... I forget the inital topic now. LOL!

=====
Goober Writer
(because life is too short to be inept)

"As soon as you hear the phrase "studies show",
immediately put a hand on your wallet and cover your groin."
      -- Geoff Hart

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com