I'm curious to know wether or not how people prefer people would get hired. Thread title is self explanatory. Would you rather see hirings based off of popularity or anonymity?

Pros of Popularity:
-Known to most people
-Could have a good reputation for their work
-Less confusion
-Experience

Cons of Popularity:
-Seen as unfair
-Could have had a bad reputation by most
-May be willing to work less and simply just wanting to have the title

Pros of Anonymity:
-Equal chance
-More likely to work instead of chat
-Less negative judgement towards the person

Cons of Anonymity:
-Lack of experience
-More judgement towards the work the person does
-More confusion about who the person is
-Biased opinions about the person form quickly

Those are what I can think off the top of my head. I'd personally like to see more people I know/heard of get hired because there's just never that moment of "Oh who's that?". You know exactly who it is, what to expect and what to think of them. What do you think works better for hiring during a server?  

Example: Tim Tebow(popular) vs Eli Manning(quiet)  

Anonymity, give everyone a chance. I mean dont make it so anonymous that a 10 year old hu typs laik dis gets hired, but someone who has potential and is willing to learn should be given a fair chance. GFX Wise, there is probably a lot more talented GFX, LATS etc. no name players then some may think.  

anonymity  

Neither of these options are good. Hirings by suitability.  

I get what you're trying to say but if someone is anonymous he isn't necessarily unexperienced. Same for the popular players- they aren't necessarily experienced.  

i prefer skilled developers getting hired instead of brown nosing noobs.  

Posted by Rufus

Neither of these options are good. Hirings by suitability.

That's sort of like an unsaid inclusion. The person is obviously getting hired for something. Question is, would it be better for someone well known or anonymous for the job?  

Blueh, you post some of the most interesting threads!  

Posted by Blueh

That's sort of like an unsaid inclusion. The person is obviously getting hired for something. Question is, would it be better for someone well known or anonymous for the job?

In that case, I'd prefer someone who is not known. People who are 'known' can often lead to conflicts of interest.  

This is confusing. I will try and answer to what I think you are trying to say.

I would rather see someone hired that I know over some random person. Reasons being, they are known for a reason, if it is bad, you can comment on that, if it is good, then you know the person can get the job done. With random people, it is hard to know what they will do so it is a bit of a gamble.

However, I agree with what Rufus says. I might not get the topic or what we are supposed to respond to, but it is all about what the new hire can actually do, not what he/she has or has not done in the past.  

Posted by Rufus

Neither of these options are good. Hirings by suitability.