RE: Fitting a Job Ad (was Re: Misguided Love)

[v2cdisrc -at- us -dot- ibm -dot- com]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my previous post. Everyone who has
replied so far said that they would apply for the job. A few encouraged me
to do so. I apologize if my original post came across as if I were actually
in that situation. Upon re-reading it, I realized that it came across. I
had no intention of being duplicitous. I am not looking for another job
right now. I love what I'm doing and have no desire to change.

I was trying to get the List's opinion on what to do in that scenario. It's
been bugging me for a while.

However, the responses I got brought up something else that's been bugging
me. So far most of them have confirmed to me that good tech writers should
be able to market themselves on skill sets other than knowledge of tools,
such as Word for Frame.

What I am trying to do is examine what appears to be a conflict between
what hiring people (those who aren't tech writers themselves) think makes a
good technical writer and what technical writers think make a good tech
writer. (I know that was a lousy sentence.)

If I were to name the skills that I think make a good tech writer, the
tools that he or she knows would be towards the bottom of the list.
However, on my resume, guess what's on the top? A long list of tools. Why?
Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. However, I do feel like recruiters are
looking for tools. When comparing two candidates, it seems to me that a
long list of tools is an easy (though inaccurate and lazy) way to quantify
a writer's skills.

What do you think, list. Is there a conflict out there? Am I adding to it,
or just trying to market myself in a way that gets the job? Or am I just
imagining things in my sometimes muddled brain?

Samuel R Choy

My narrow point of view is mine and mine alone.