Reply to: I despair...

[TykeMerc]

Perhaps NL finds it as difficult to get grammar spot on...

I don't think so, I'm very sensitive to how people write and in most things he's spot on, the misuse of your for you're is almost invariably a caracteristic of idleness as is there instead of their or they're.
To put that comment in context I deal with a lot of people who have English as their second or third language and while their grammar or spelling is often off the mistakes I've mentioned are rare as they know they're different words.

Don't get me started on the txtspk substitutions... U, and UR are basically unreadable to me (as they have their own real meanings) and I struggle to
work out what the hell they're supposed to mean in context. Sends me bananas, I've spent years in vain trying to retrain myself to understand the lazy writing that sprang to the fore a decade or so back, it sends me nuts.

[MaryPoppins]

Possibly, but I find it a nightmare to read a sentence that has a word with a different meaning, but similar sound as it throws the context to hell.

It's a form of dyslexia and it means that I have to work out the meaning longhand rather than being able to fast skim read when the context is knackered. It sends me up the wall.

On your original point I agree completely it's damn irritating to get the "you're overqualified" line, it's all but impossible to get through to an agent that overqualified or not you want the role and are happy to do it for the contract duration as advertised.

Perhaps NL finds it as difficult to get grammar spot on...

Precisely, gggrrr! I resent having to justify myself, yes, that's the nail on the head..!

[TykeMerc]

Tad mean I think.

Possibly, but I find it a nightmare to read a sentence that has a word with a different meaning, but similar sound as it throws the context to hell.

It's a form of dyslexia and it means that I have to work out the meaning longhand rather than being able to fast skim read when the context is knackered. It sends me up the wall.

On your original point I agree completely it's damn irritating to get the "you're overqualified" line, it's all but impossible to get through to an agent that overqualified or not you want the role and are happy to do it for the contract duration as advertised.

[TheFaQQer]

Tad mean I think.

Harsh but fair.

[MaryPoppins]

Probably for the same reason you write YOUR instead of YOU'RE and TO instead of TOO, it's called being lazy

Tad mean I think.

[TheFaQQer]

He's a nob. northernlad sees himself as some form of forum ploice demanding people dont quote the whole post for some reason. Probably because he's too lazy.

police

HTH

[BolshieBastard]

I do that all the time...!

He's a nob. northernlad sees himself as some form of forum ploice demanding people dont quote the whole post for some reason. Probably because he's too lazy.

Anyways, putting yourself forward at the highest rate isnt always the best move imo. Its a bit like when you get quotes for work at your home. The highest quote isnt an indication of the best workmanship. And, you tend to dismiss the highest and lowest quotes anyway.

So, especially in a tight market, it makes sense to go in at a slightly lower rate.

[TykeMerc]

And zippy, why quote the entire (and long) post right underneath the original post so making us scroll to read the next reply????

Probably for the same reason you write YOUR instead of YOU'RE and TO instead of TOO, it's called being lazy

Believe me I find the lazy misuse of similar sounding words a hell of a lot more annoying than someone quoting an entire post annoys you. I have to work out the meaning of what you post from 1st principles when your doesn't make sense in context, same is true for misuse of to/too and there/their/they're.

[Zippy]

And zippy, why quote the entire (and long) post right underneath the original post so making us scroll to read the next reply????

It's for the benefit of those that can't be bothered to read it all

[Tarquin Farquhar]

And I don't agree. If your over qualified it doesn't naturally mean your worth the top rate. If anything being overqualified makes you a risk

What risk? Jumping ship? Is there any evidence whatever that being better qualified makes one more likely to breach a contract?

[MaryPoppins]

LOL tell me about it. I bet a everyone reading this is nodding at this point!!



Agreed again and frustrates me because of some of the more unscrupulous of our profession make such that being over qualified is a risk. If you pay that I am happy, no risk with me but thats their call.



Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

She was an annoying so and so basically. Knows eff all about my role and yet can decide my worth obviously.

PS - some 12 yr olds spell quite well so don't feel bad. I am typing one handed as have a baby sleeping on me so that's my excuse.

[northernladuk]

I have grudgingly tweaked my CV but not dishonestly so I feel Ok about that. And like Zippy says, if it's offered I can barter then. It just frustrates me that they quote these rates and never expect you to want it! Winkers.

LOL tell me about it. I bet a everyone reading this is nodding at this point!!

The point is - I'm not overqualified, in my opinion. I'm a good match but the agent didn't understand as much. I needed to include the usualy key words in order to pass the HR filtering process or some such balls. I agree that if I were overqualified then why should they take the risk. But if I am an almost perfect match then why shouldn't I ask for the top rate?

Agreed again and frustrates me because of some of the more unscrupulous of our profession make such that being over qualified is a risk. If you pay that I am happy, no risk with me but thats their call.

I do that all the time...!

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[MaryPoppins]

And zippy, why quote the entire (and long) post right underneath the original post so making us scroll to read the next reply????

I do that all the time...!

[MaryPoppins]

And I don't agree. If your over qualified it doesn't naturally mean your worth the top rate. If anything being overqualified makes you a risk and why should they pay top dollar AND run the risk of you leaving. If the person they are after is quite capable of fulfilling the role and no more and a reduced rate then thats what they will be happy with.

The point is - I'm not overqualified, in my opinion. I'm a good match but the agent didn't understand as much. I needed to include the usualy key words in order to pass the HR filtering process or some such balls. I agree that if I were overqualified then why should they take the risk. But if I am an almost perfect match then why shouldn't I ask for the top rate?

[MaryPoppins]

In my experience if there is any hint of you being over qualified your dead in the water even if the rate is more than the going rate for your level. I would have offered to do a new CV dumbing experience down to be honest

The top rate question. I find that in the past even though I have been perfect for the role down to the last dot on the job spec they never put you in for top rate. My suspicion is they have slightly inflated to get the best people and interest or undercut slightly to make it more attractive to the client if they are not the only ones submitting CV's. Just 20-30 quid like you say but it puts them cheapest with the same candidate but not dropping to low as really affect their margin.

Oh and once I was in a bidding war where someone else said they would do it for 20 quid less so agent asked if I would do for 25 quid less. I said yes but no more, if they want to pay peanuts to monkeys then leave me alone. I was actually surprised the agent mentioned it to me but there you go.

In my time I found this undercutting the top rate is just what happens. I thought it was the norm to be honest. Hoping to be proven wrong TBH

I have grudgingly tweaked my CV but not dishonestly so I feel Ok about that. And like Zippy says, if it's offered I can barter then. It just frustrates me that they quote these rates and never expect you to want it! Winkers.