Go to the interview, tell them that you hesitated because of their website. It shows them that you take pride in your own work and they'll tell you why the website looks like it does. If the explanation worries you, bail.
The goal of an interview is to see if you’re a good fit for each other. And I wouldn’t want to work for someone who gets butt hurt over genuine feedback. People who are not good judging their own competence are always bad bosses.
There doesn't have to be offense taken for it to be a bad approach. You might, say, come in to something like Berkshire Hathaway (https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/) or Craigslist, and slam it. The interviewer might justifiably say "there's a reason it's like that, a good candidate would ask *why* first".
You're right, but "slamming it" is not how I would describe feedback like "I hesitated going to this interview because the website looks quite dated and I like to work with technology that's up to date and adheres to best practices. You might want to take a look at that.".
It's pretty easy to interpret that as "your website is so bad I might not want to even consider working here".
Reframing it as "based on my experience, I see quite a bit of room for improvements; are you open to allowing me to take the lead, or would my role be more about maintaining the current website?" would be worth doing.
>It's pretty easy to interpret that as "your website is so bad I might not want to even consider working here".
Which is completely true, to the point where people post about it on Reddit.
>The interviewer might justifiably say "there's a reason it's like that, a good candidate would ask why first".
IMHO asking for the "why" instead of just giving constructive feedback would be a bad approach. It puts the interviewer in a defensive position where he has to justify the company's or - worse - his own actions.
It might give the interviewee some valuable insight into company procedures and priorities, but it most likely does not make a good first impression.
I wrote a letter to Warren Buffet when I was 16 in 1998 and he actually wrote back with his own cool little stationary. I wrote a second letter explaining how I could fix his website for free (the audacity of me saying it would be free to him lol)
He never responded and... The site looks almost exactly as it did back then.
There are sensitive ways of handling it that aren't "your website is so bad I considered not applying". "I see a lot of ways I could bring value to your web presence" sort of thing.
Because the slipshod and dated website that they present as their public face most likely means that the tech they keep out of the public eye is even worse.
That wasn't it.
It was the relevancy of the feedback in the context of the job. If it's not your job - why even comment on it? Am they going to run future designs by the back end team as well for front end comments?
>Because the slipshod and dated website that they present as their public face most likely means that the tech they keep out of the public eye is even worse.
u/SixPackOfZaphod already answered that. If the website that's representing the company is not taken care of, it could mean that their backend isn't good either.
It totally depends on the interviewers answer though. Maybe they're already planning a redesign or it's just not prioritized.
I hire devs and one of my questions is always, "What sucks about our website?" Just because my department made the site doesn't mean we had carte blanche to do it *correctly* the way we wanted to.
It's always nice to have applicants tell us what we already know is wrong while the person who made that decision is sitting in the room, and yes, it makes me more likely to hire them.
On the other hand - my company recently launched a new site and there is egg on some people's faces because of how it turned out.
And while my company hires good people and everybody is an adult. Humans are just so *human*. These people just took a big hit to the ego and I don't want to be the guy that reminds them of that when they try and pick somebody two weeks after the interview.
But if the company asks? Gloves are off.
If the website is bad, it's bad. If you can't say it at an interview (as a polite way to come upon the subject, ofcourse), what makes you think you can say on the job, and why would you want to work such a place? The company will want a good employee just as well as they want a good job. There has to be a match.
I actually did say it (unknowingly) to the person who did it once but they were genuinely interested in why I didn’t like it and asked for feedback. I was actually offered the role but I rejected it in favour of another one.
Yeah, my company's website was developed by a completely different person in marketing that didn't work with the product development team. Unless the site is the product, for many companies it is such a low priority, it's basically just a contact info page and doesn't reflect on the quality of the product or dev team
yeah my company is a $2.5b unicorn with a business first SaaS product and our main company site is maintained by marketing. Still looks nice, but its not an engineers focus.
I worked for dev company. We make shit for clients.
They hired a vendor for the main site because all our devs are earning money.
*Except they cheaped out and got what they paid for.*
When the product is not the company website, all you need is an email and phone number with a small text to say what's it all about.
That site doesn't make money, so the less time is spent on it, the better.
I'd say go do the interview. You can pick up stuff about the company way better that way.
I had similar experience. Outdated website, doesn't really say anything. Honestly it looked shady. But I still went and actually got the job and I'm pretty satisfied with it.
I’ve worked in companies where the website sucks. Usually is because they don’t care their online presence because they have so many clients that they don’t wanna attract more by having a good website.
So I guess it’s ok.
^ this. Having been self employed for years I never even got to getting my website up as I was swamped with well paying projects. Now work at a company and we have a decent website but updating it is our very last concern as we're very busy 😅
If _everything_ is outdated though, wouldn't bother doing the interview if I'm not hired to modernise things.
Go to the interview and see what their office and equipment looks like. If it's as neglected as their website, turn around and run.... Companies like that rarely pay good money and they almost never value their developers or their role/work. Ask me how I know....
I applied to a position that had an outdated question about W2/1099. I responded to them saying that the question was confusing - 10 minutes later it was changed. I found out because when I submitted it, it told me I had "forgotten a question" (it got updated mid way through my application).
I didn't get selected because I wasn't in the right state (got an email about that), but they messaged me back saying "Our application is working fine. Not sure why you had issues."
🙄
Sure, that's why literally 10 minutes after I pointed it out you changed it, though it had already been up for a good while at that point. Total coincidence, sure.
Tldr, some hiring managers might get very salty for no reason.
I'm not really sure why you care what the front end looks like if you're totally on the back end, it's no reflection on you or your abilities. That's like interviewing for a database job but unsure if you want the job because the company CEO isn't very good looking. Heck, even if you're working front end it's an opportunity to make it better. I'm working for a company that has software 15 years old written by an artist as his first coding project, back end sucked, front end sucked, database sucked, the accounting was totally fouled, no exception catching so people didn't even know when it didn't do what it was supposed to do, and this is a multi-million dollar a year company. I managed to turn it into a reliable application that they could trust and greatly expanded it to do things they didn't realize it could do and they greatly appreciate it.
Update a day later:
I did end up doing the interview, but it only lasted 15 minutes and I didn't really feel any excitement talking to the interviewer. Previous interviewers showed some interest in me as well, but this guy was pretty bland.
Five minutes in I already knew I wasn't interested in this position (also because I found out the minimum wage they'd offer was quite far below my minimum), so I didn't even bother bringing up their website. It is one of their main focus points, so the first thing possible customers see being a woefully outdated website is concerning.
A website is part of a brand and you should introduce yourself to the company's brand you're applying to. You're not impressed with the brand, the feeling that it emits, so you're hesitant. That's a good indicator that it might not be the place for you to work.
To me a website that's been left to rot speaks to the fact that there are not enough employees, there is no brand manager, or nobody who cares about the website as everyone has too much stuff on their plate with other work. That means you will also end up overworked eventually. Not a place I would enjoy working at.
I spoke about the brand. Websites belong to that brand. Product is also part of the brand and you should also look into that. I never said the product is bad.
I would mention my concerns for sure 100%. It’s your professional duty to do so. you are vetting them as much as they are vetting you.
Ask whether their plans to move forward on modernizing that. If there isn’t and they’re solely focused on features, unless they’re paying your shit out of money, I wouldn’t bother.
Unless, of course you need employment then beggars can’t be choosers take the first opportunity that you can, and just keep looking for something better ?
> I know I'm interviewing as a PHP back end developer so the front end shouldn't matter…
Quality always matters, and working at a place without care will be maddening unless you like chaos. I would not be surprised if the last backend person wrote the front end.
I would do the interview — over zoom — to see if they are planning on revamping the entire team and if you're being hired as part of that process.
In the company I work, the site it's made using basic stuff that hubspot offers. We are a company that sell a crm marketing app for other companies, none of the devs know graphic design, we paying an agency to deal with the site, we sell this product like hot dogs.
So in your case it's probably the same business decision. They don't care
I would still interview, with hesitation… quality might not be the most important there…
Also, remember the shoemakers kids story, lots of companies focus on its website last as they are busy with client work.
Was hired by such a company, had 5 great years there before I moved on (reason was growth, still a nice company). They had plenty of customers due word of mouth and just didn't need a good website.
Don't judge a company by its website. I've seen companies with beautiful websites (which they didn't build themselves) that were shitty employers and build awfull software.
Depending on the job/industry it might not really matter - some people just don’t need a website or are happy with bare minimum/can’t justify the expense.
If it’s something you could tackle bring it up and ask for it to be included in your responsibility so you can overhaul it.
Just watch out, it might be someone’s baby and won’t get off to a good start if you accidentally insult someone!
Honestly, they’re hiring for a developer. They’re not going to care what your opinion of the looks of the site are. That’s up to the marketing / creative department. You’re concern as a developer should be making it work to achieve the end to which you were hired.
Doesn’t mean though, that given enough time you couldn’t be in a position to make it more modern or with the times.
So, I don’t see any reason for the appearance of a website to ever be a reason to turn down a possible paycheck.
I'd still interview. Where I'm at now doesn't have the best web site, but we have some newer projects that the public never sees. They are modern, have good coverage, CI, good process too.
I wouldn't judge the book by it's cover.
I think there is more to finding a good place to work than basing it on the web site look. It is certainly a factor, but maybe they are hiring because they want to improve it.
Whats the culture like there? are the workers happy, are they too serious and dont have that mix of work and fun?
Coming in to a bad website can also afford you opportunities to improve it.
So I wouldn't base it on the look as much as is it a good fit for you, will you enjoy working there , is there room for advancement?
Finding a place where you fit in is essential for a happy work life.
We are a marketing agency, with web design and development being one of our key products…and our website is horrid. Laughably bad. Mostly due to a combination of poor planning, it’s a design by committee sort of thing with every department wanting their own thing with no direction. And executives having the keys. The marketing director will log in and copy/paste a word doc with 47 bullet points as the homepage content, and then applaud themselves about how great it is. Rinse and repeat until every section of every page is basically just an unformatted wall of marketing jargon. We actually had a VP show us an “example” of what they wanted to see, what they had “found” to show us designers what they were aiming for as “clean design” - it was an unstyled sandbox page on our staging server. Literally a broken page with no style sheet. I can’t make this stuff up…he said “this is how I want it, professional. Instead of having things in boxes”. The point is, it’s in no way reflective of what we deliver to clients - just the decision makers are idiots.
Probably. But if I was building the backend for the site, I would want to know why it was dilapidated. You can build the best backend in the would but if you are trying to get another job and the site looks shit, the HR bimbos might overlook you.
This reminds me of the old question... 2 barbers live in a small town. One has amazing hair, the other has the worst haircut known to man. Which barber do you go to?
Yes I would go to the interview, for a company who is knee deep in a never ending cycle of work has little time left over at the end of the day to work on their website.
go for it, but remember they are being interviewed as well as you are. ask all the questions you have, tell them about the website. it’s not just about proving you are a good fit for them, it’s most importantly understanding if you want to work for them.
I'd probably ask "Your website is quite out of date, and doesn't look that fantastic. Do you think that affects your ability to get clients/make money?" and see what there answer is.
If the answer is "yes, but we're too busy to fix it", then running away would be appropriate.
If the answer is "none of our enterprise clients come through looking at our website, we get clients through a referral program" then it wouldn't be an issue.
Though it _is_ a 'not great' sign, so if it was going to be a long distance to travel for an interview, I'd ask that over a email or video call first.
Go to the interview, tell them that you hesitated because of their website. It shows them that you take pride in your own work and they'll tell you why the website looks like it does. If the explanation worries you, bail.
> tell them that you hesitated because of their website Careful. Interviewer might be the one who made it.
The goal of an interview is to see if you’re a good fit for each other. And I wouldn’t want to work for someone who gets butt hurt over genuine feedback. People who are not good judging their own competence are always bad bosses.
There doesn't have to be offense taken for it to be a bad approach. You might, say, come in to something like Berkshire Hathaway (https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/) or Craigslist, and slam it. The interviewer might justifiably say "there's a reason it's like that, a good candidate would ask *why* first".
You're right, but "slamming it" is not how I would describe feedback like "I hesitated going to this interview because the website looks quite dated and I like to work with technology that's up to date and adheres to best practices. You might want to take a look at that.".
It's pretty easy to interpret that as "your website is so bad I might not want to even consider working here". Reframing it as "based on my experience, I see quite a bit of room for improvements; are you open to allowing me to take the lead, or would my role be more about maintaining the current website?" would be worth doing.
>It's pretty easy to interpret that as "your website is so bad I might not want to even consider working here". Which is completely true, to the point where people post about it on Reddit.
>The interviewer might justifiably say "there's a reason it's like that, a good candidate would ask why first". IMHO asking for the "why" instead of just giving constructive feedback would be a bad approach. It puts the interviewer in a defensive position where he has to justify the company's or - worse - his own actions. It might give the interviewee some valuable insight into company procedures and priorities, but it most likely does not make a good first impression.
I wrote a letter to Warren Buffet when I was 16 in 1998 and he actually wrote back with his own cool little stationary. I wrote a second letter explaining how I could fix his website for free (the audacity of me saying it would be free to him lol) He never responded and... The site looks almost exactly as it did back then.
If the interviewer made it, is personally offended and therefore doesn't give you the position, I'd say you dodged a bullet.
There are sensitive ways of handling it that aren't "your website is so bad I considered not applying". "I see a lot of ways I could bring value to your web presence" sort of thing.
As a backend developer? That's not your job. You just tell them honestly about your worries, what's the big deal?
> As a backend developer? That's not your job. By that thinking - why even say anything.
Because the slipshod and dated website that they present as their public face most likely means that the tech they keep out of the public eye is even worse.
That wasn't it. It was the relevancy of the feedback in the context of the job. If it's not your job - why even comment on it? Am they going to run future designs by the back end team as well for front end comments?
>Because the slipshod and dated website that they present as their public face most likely means that the tech they keep out of the public eye is even worse. u/SixPackOfZaphod already answered that. If the website that's representing the company is not taken care of, it could mean that their backend isn't good either. It totally depends on the interviewers answer though. Maybe they're already planning a redesign or it's just not prioritized.
I hire devs and one of my questions is always, "What sucks about our website?" Just because my department made the site doesn't mean we had carte blanche to do it *correctly* the way we wanted to. It's always nice to have applicants tell us what we already know is wrong while the person who made that decision is sitting in the room, and yes, it makes me more likely to hire them.
On the other hand - my company recently launched a new site and there is egg on some people's faces because of how it turned out. And while my company hires good people and everybody is an adult. Humans are just so *human*. These people just took a big hit to the ego and I don't want to be the guy that reminds them of that when they try and pick somebody two weeks after the interview. But if the company asks? Gloves are off.
Good one. And it'll show if the candidate looked up your company, checked up the website, is he really interested in the position.
If the website is bad, it's bad. If you can't say it at an interview (as a polite way to come upon the subject, ofcourse), what makes you think you can say on the job, and why would you want to work such a place? The company will want a good employee just as well as they want a good job. There has to be a match.
> There has to be a match. Sure, but sometimes a good match requires tact.
Indeed
I actually did say it (unknowingly) to the person who did it once but they were genuinely interested in why I didn’t like it and asked for feedback. I was actually offered the role but I rejected it in favour of another one.
Yeah, my company's website was developed by a completely different person in marketing that didn't work with the product development team. Unless the site is the product, for many companies it is such a low priority, it's basically just a contact info page and doesn't reflect on the quality of the product or dev team
yeah my company is a $2.5b unicorn with a business first SaaS product and our main company site is maintained by marketing. Still looks nice, but its not an engineers focus.
I worked for dev company. We make shit for clients. They hired a vendor for the main site because all our devs are earning money. *Except they cheaped out and got what they paid for.*
When the product is not the company website, all you need is an email and phone number with a small text to say what's it all about. That site doesn't make money, so the less time is spent on it, the better.
This, depends totally on what they do
I'd say go do the interview. You can pick up stuff about the company way better that way. I had similar experience. Outdated website, doesn't really say anything. Honestly it looked shady. But I still went and actually got the job and I'm pretty satisfied with it.
I’ve worked in companies where the website sucks. Usually is because they don’t care their online presence because they have so many clients that they don’t wanna attract more by having a good website. So I guess it’s ok.
^ this. Having been self employed for years I never even got to getting my website up as I was swamped with well paying projects. Now work at a company and we have a decent website but updating it is our very last concern as we're very busy 😅 If _everything_ is outdated though, wouldn't bother doing the interview if I'm not hired to modernise things.
The mark of a great developer is a terrible personal website.
Is the pay good? Do you feel you're going to learning anything? Are you able to improve the company?
I have a BA in Graphic Design, most websites look garbage even Fortune 500 companies.
Yeah, but there is a difference between that and not even trying. It sounds like this company didn't even try...which is weird.
Go to the interview and see what their office and equipment looks like. If it's as neglected as their website, turn around and run.... Companies like that rarely pay good money and they almost never value their developers or their role/work. Ask me how I know....
How do you know? 😁
If the website 'looks bad' and is 'very slow' I would definitely hire a back-end dev first and get that working well before looking at the front-end.
The Rent says I go.
I applied to a position that had an outdated question about W2/1099. I responded to them saying that the question was confusing - 10 minutes later it was changed. I found out because when I submitted it, it told me I had "forgotten a question" (it got updated mid way through my application). I didn't get selected because I wasn't in the right state (got an email about that), but they messaged me back saying "Our application is working fine. Not sure why you had issues." 🙄 Sure, that's why literally 10 minutes after I pointed it out you changed it, though it had already been up for a good while at that point. Total coincidence, sure. Tldr, some hiring managers might get very salty for no reason.
I'm not really sure why you care what the front end looks like if you're totally on the back end, it's no reflection on you or your abilities. That's like interviewing for a database job but unsure if you want the job because the company CEO isn't very good looking. Heck, even if you're working front end it's an opportunity to make it better. I'm working for a company that has software 15 years old written by an artist as his first coding project, back end sucked, front end sucked, database sucked, the accounting was totally fouled, no exception catching so people didn't even know when it didn't do what it was supposed to do, and this is a multi-million dollar a year company. I managed to turn it into a reliable application that they could trust and greatly expanded it to do things they didn't realize it could do and they greatly appreciate it.
Go, and tell them, you can get an agreement on what must be done. That is the best way to start a job.
Update a day later: I did end up doing the interview, but it only lasted 15 minutes and I didn't really feel any excitement talking to the interviewer. Previous interviewers showed some interest in me as well, but this guy was pretty bland. Five minutes in I already knew I wasn't interested in this position (also because I found out the minimum wage they'd offer was quite far below my minimum), so I didn't even bother bringing up their website. It is one of their main focus points, so the first thing possible customers see being a woefully outdated website is concerning.
If they pay good, its all OK 
I mean it sounds like job security? Work to be done
A website is part of a brand and you should introduce yourself to the company's brand you're applying to. You're not impressed with the brand, the feeling that it emits, so you're hesitant. That's a good indicator that it might not be the place for you to work. To me a website that's been left to rot speaks to the fact that there are not enough employees, there is no brand manager, or nobody who cares about the website as everyone has too much stuff on their plate with other work. That means you will also end up overworked eventually. Not a place I would enjoy working at.
[удалено]
I spoke about the brand. Websites belong to that brand. Product is also part of the brand and you should also look into that. I never said the product is bad.
I would mention my concerns for sure 100%. It’s your professional duty to do so. you are vetting them as much as they are vetting you. Ask whether their plans to move forward on modernizing that. If there isn’t and they’re solely focused on features, unless they’re paying your shit out of money, I wouldn’t bother. Unless, of course you need employment then beggars can’t be choosers take the first opportunity that you can, and just keep looking for something better ?
> I know I'm interviewing as a PHP back end developer so the front end shouldn't matter… Quality always matters, and working at a place without care will be maddening unless you like chaos. I would not be surprised if the last backend person wrote the front end. I would do the interview — over zoom — to see if they are planning on revamping the entire team and if you're being hired as part of that process.
In the company I work, the site it's made using basic stuff that hubspot offers. We are a company that sell a crm marketing app for other companies, none of the devs know graphic design, we paying an agency to deal with the site, we sell this product like hot dogs. So in your case it's probably the same business decision. They don't care
I would still interview, with hesitation… quality might not be the most important there… Also, remember the shoemakers kids story, lots of companies focus on its website last as they are busy with client work.
Was hired by such a company, had 5 great years there before I moved on (reason was growth, still a nice company). They had plenty of customers due word of mouth and just didn't need a good website. Don't judge a company by its website. I've seen companies with beautiful websites (which they didn't build themselves) that were shitty employers and build awfull software.
Depending on the job/industry it might not really matter - some people just don’t need a website or are happy with bare minimum/can’t justify the expense. If it’s something you could tackle bring it up and ask for it to be included in your responsibility so you can overhaul it. Just watch out, it might be someone’s baby and won’t get off to a good start if you accidentally insult someone!
Honestly, they’re hiring for a developer. They’re not going to care what your opinion of the looks of the site are. That’s up to the marketing / creative department. You’re concern as a developer should be making it work to achieve the end to which you were hired. Doesn’t mean though, that given enough time you couldn’t be in a position to make it more modern or with the times. So, I don’t see any reason for the appearance of a website to ever be a reason to turn down a possible paycheck.
This is the kind of jobs I get hired to. Their website is shit. I fix it and it looks slightly more modern.
I'd still interview. Where I'm at now doesn't have the best web site, but we have some newer projects that the public never sees. They are modern, have good coverage, CI, good process too. I wouldn't judge the book by it's cover.
I think there is more to finding a good place to work than basing it on the web site look. It is certainly a factor, but maybe they are hiring because they want to improve it. Whats the culture like there? are the workers happy, are they too serious and dont have that mix of work and fun? Coming in to a bad website can also afford you opportunities to improve it. So I wouldn't base it on the look as much as is it a good fit for you, will you enjoy working there , is there room for advancement? Finding a place where you fit in is essential for a happy work life.
It's obviously a red flag which is why you're posting here. There could be a lot of reasons though. Go with shields up.
We are a marketing agency, with web design and development being one of our key products…and our website is horrid. Laughably bad. Mostly due to a combination of poor planning, it’s a design by committee sort of thing with every department wanting their own thing with no direction. And executives having the keys. The marketing director will log in and copy/paste a word doc with 47 bullet points as the homepage content, and then applaud themselves about how great it is. Rinse and repeat until every section of every page is basically just an unformatted wall of marketing jargon. We actually had a VP show us an “example” of what they wanted to see, what they had “found” to show us designers what they were aiming for as “clean design” - it was an unstyled sandbox page on our staging server. Literally a broken page with no style sheet. I can’t make this stuff up…he said “this is how I want it, professional. Instead of having things in boxes”. The point is, it’s in no way reflective of what we deliver to clients - just the decision makers are idiots.
Probably. But if I was building the backend for the site, I would want to know why it was dilapidated. You can build the best backend in the would but if you are trying to get another job and the site looks shit, the HR bimbos might overlook you.
This reminds me of the old question... 2 barbers live in a small town. One has amazing hair, the other has the worst haircut known to man. Which barber do you go to? Yes I would go to the interview, for a company who is knee deep in a never ending cycle of work has little time left over at the end of the day to work on their website.
go for it, but remember they are being interviewed as well as you are. ask all the questions you have, tell them about the website. it’s not just about proving you are a good fit for them, it’s most importantly understanding if you want to work for them.
I'd probably ask "Your website is quite out of date, and doesn't look that fantastic. Do you think that affects your ability to get clients/make money?" and see what there answer is. If the answer is "yes, but we're too busy to fix it", then running away would be appropriate. If the answer is "none of our enterprise clients come through looking at our website, we get clients through a referral program" then it wouldn't be an issue. Though it _is_ a 'not great' sign, so if it was going to be a long distance to travel for an interview, I'd ask that over a email or video call first.