The Official "WWWD?" Thread

[Turk]

Another topic for WWWD: this one is Linkedin usage. What to do with headhunters?

I've used headhunters (usually vetted by corporate HR), and made my own contacts over the years. So I'm sitting on a half-dozen linkedin invitations from assorted headhunters. Not sure I want them in the same network with my friends I've worked with over the years. I find unsolicited calls and emails about job fishing are easy enough to ignore or politely fend off, but others get annoyed.

I don't see the value of accepting a headhunter's invite just to join his/her "network" of 500+ people. I doubt it will give me any boost next time I'm in the market, and I don't feel like doing any bird-dogging for any friends that might be stuck in a lousy gig.

I'm thinking about setting up another "headhunter only" account - for more casual business contacts that I want to keep out of my real circle of colleagues... Windsor, we're in the same general line of work, what do you think?

[windsor]

That is a sticky one. I would be inclined to decline their request. I am not interested in being the middle man to boost someones contact list. I don't mind the random job calls ...but I know people who do as well. If you want to set up a seperate account that's a good solution that allows you to maintain contact with them without opening up the rest of your contacts to them.

[ArkieDukie]

That is a sticky one. I would be inclined to decline their request. I am not interested in being the middle man to boost someones contact list. I don't mind the random job calls ...but I know people who do as well. If you want to set up a seperate account that's a good solution that allows you to maintain contact with them without opening up the rest of your contacts to them.

That's what I do. If I don't know you, I will not connect with you on LinkedIn. I am connected with one head hunter, but it's someone I've been working with on my job search.

[ArkieDukie]

As y'all know from the "Interesting Dilemma" thread, PHB and I have philosophical differences regarding data analysis and interpretation. One of the reasons for this is our lab's acceptance criteria for protein identifications. (Remember that I work in a lab that does biomarker discovery research, and my specialty is data acquisition and analysis for a particular type of instrument from which we get protein identifications.) A colleague, whom I'll call Blustery, did a study to establish our current acceptance criteria. Blustery freely admits that he does not know how to run the instrument or interpret the data from said instrument, but he's very emphatic in stating that our criteria are fine and everyone else in the field is wrong. (As an aside, Blustery is the person that NuBarbie relies on when PHB is not around and she has questions regarding data analysis.) As it happens, publication requirements in our field are evolving to the point where reviewers are starting to question our acceptance criteria. Blustery is saying the reviewers are idiots.

A couple of weeks ago, PHB asked me to prepare a table for a manuscript using our current acceptance criteria. I expressed concern and got a patronizing response. In what I consider a small victory, PHB suggested that I add a second table with the acceptance criteria used by everyone else in the field (a reasonable compromise from PHB!). I made the mistake of mentioning the additional table to Blustery and received yet another patronizing speech about how our criteria are fine. I've looked at enough data to know this is NOT true, and Blustery's speech was the straw the broke the camel's back. Using the two tables that I generated for this particular manuscript, I did a detailed analysis of the results with the lower criteria. The results were not surprising to me: we added 90 proteins with the less stringent criteria, and 70 of them were false positives (in other words, they were completely and totally wrong). I sent the results to PHB and, for the bazillionth time, his response was to send a copy of a paper that details a bioinformatics program we'll be using at some point. This was the second straw that broke the camel's back. Our shiny new bioinformaticist has been supposedly getting this program up and running for us for the last 6 months. In the spirit of Windsor, I wrote PHB a response that said, "Yeah, but we don't have this program yet, so we have to use the tools we have for the time being." I went on to suggest, in diplomatic terms, that it's irresponsible to tell our collaborators to use the lower acceptance criteria when none of them have the skills necessary to determine which of the proteins gained by the lower criteria are false positives. Yes, it's bold, but what's the worst he can do, fire me? (No response from PHB.)

Yesterday he asked me to generate a table for another paper. This time he asked me to use the acceptance criteria that are accepted by the rest of the field.

[ArkieDukie]

For the last week, I've been dealing with reviewer comments from a manuscript we submitted a couple of months ago. As it turns out, one of the protein assignments that was crucial to the manuscript was wrong. At this point I'll mention that the assignment was confirmed by a more sensitive put less specific technique, so we had good reason to believe the protein of interest was really there. After several days of data mining, I managed to confirm the assignment.

The problem with this assignment arose from the fact that we used a custom, in-house database to make the assignment. Yeah, if you search against a database containing your protein of interest and not much else, there's a pretty good chance you're going to get a random hit for your protein of interest. PPI and The Minion always insist upon a custom database because "they have purified their protein and there's nothing else in it."

On Thursday, I received a note from a co-worker to process some data files for The Minion. I noted the sample source and chose the database to use (a broad database for the species their sample came from). I received an e-mail from The Minion, asking me to "help" her search their special custom database. She copied PHB, but not her boss. I sent her a nice response in which I detailed the problems with using a custom database as evidenced by the problem manuscript. Attached was a copy of a paper that details a particular aspect of data analysis that she flat-out ignored in the infamous manuscript I pulled my name from. I told her I would send copies of search results from both databases, and I strongly suggested that she use the broad search to validate the results from the custom database. I copied PHB and PPI, and I'm pretty confident that the message passed WTA.

When PPI and The Minion came by yesterday for their meeting with PHB, PPI stopped by my desk to thank me for my cautionary note and for the paper. He then told me that I raised some good points, but it's irrelevant for their samples. I knew this would be their response, but not telling them about newly confirmed dangers of their method for data analysis would be wrong. They can choose to ignore what I told them; that makes them wrong, and it is officially no longer my problem.

In the interest of full disclosure, I've been sitting on the paper I sent to PPI and The Minion for several months now, waiting for the perfect opportunity to send it to them. I'm not sure that The Minion is smart enough to realize that I sent her the literature precedence for the work I did for the manuscript from hell, but PHB might be. And, yes, that would be the work that The Minion redid because she didn't like the answer I came up with. What's especially fun is that the author of the paper actually makes a somewhat derogatory comment about the scientific validity of the approach that The Minion used when she redid the data analysis. Sending the paper probably doesn't pass the WTA test, but it sure was fun. It was sent in the context of a friendly, informative, "you need to be aware of this problem" type note, so maybe it was okay. What do the rest of you think?

[windsor]

I would have sent it. Sometimes you need to waive the WTA test in favor of a YSFI (you stupid f#ck, implied). The fine and honored art of calling someone a stupid f. without actually saying it.

Given that you have new job irons in the fire (although nothing firm yet) I would continue to raise issues like this as politically as possible with all the documentation you can muster. I have no doubt that once you leave for greener protein pastures you WILL be subject to the age old "blame the one that left". I am assuming that your field of expertise is relatively small...so having adequate documentation that you told the yahoos they were using the wrong database (and other crimes against rational science) may, at some point, be needed to uphold your good name.

I hope very soon you are working somewhere that has gotten beyond the 'draw the curve, then plot your data' technique (that got some of us through Bonkestry)

[ArkieDukie]

I would have sent it. Sometimes you need to waive the WTA test in favor of a YSFI (you stupid f#ck, implied). The fine and honored art of calling someone a stupid f. without actually saying it.

Given that you have new job irons in the fire (although nothing firm yet) I would continue to raise issues like this as politically as possible with all the documentation you can muster. I have no doubt that once you leave for greener protein pastures you WILL be subject to the age old "blame the one that left". I am assuming that your field of expertise is relatively small...so having adequate documentation that you told the yahoos they were using the wrong database (and other crimes against rational science) may, at some point, be needed to uphold your good name.

I hope very soon you are working somewhere that has gotten beyond the 'draw the curve, then plot your data' technique (that got some of us through Bonkestry)

Excellent point, windsor. Thanks! I will be sure to keep copies of all these e-mails. I had not thought about doing so, but you are absolutely correct in saying that I might need copies at some point. Given my boss' tendency to throw people under the bus, I would be the likely person to be blamed when results are called into question. Recall that this was the main reason I pulled my name from PPI and The Minion's paper, and similar issues could come up again in the future. Saving e-mails is a pre-emptive CMA move.

I think recent events may be turning the tide toward Blustery being the person under the bus. Blustery is actually a nice guy, but he's one of those people that will go down on the sinking ship, declaring that he didn't hit an iceberg. I'm sure we all know people like that; I think I've worked with someone like that every place I've ever been. One of my favorite uncles had this particular personality trait, may he rest in peace. PHB has a bit of this in him as well. To this point, PHB has been basing many of his policies regarding acceptance criteria on "studies" performed (very poorly IMO) by Blustery. I've been raising concerns for about a year now, and I've been painted as a troublemaker. I'm finally doing something I should've been doing all along: providing hard evidence to back up what I'm saying and beating PHB over the head with it. You may recall that my stated goal in the "Dilemma" thread was to make PHB realize that I am not a total idiot before I hand in my resignation. Well, that could very well be happening. Unfortunately, it could be at Blustery's expense.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

YSFI (you stupid f#ck, implied). The fine and honored art of calling someone a stupid f. without actually saying it.

YSFI Brilliant yet again!

Given that you have new job irons in the fire (although nothing firm yet) I would continue to raise issues like this as politically as possible with all the documentation you can muster. I have no doubt that once you leave for greener protein pastures you WILL be subject to the age old "blame the one that left". I am assuming that your field of expertise is relatively small...so having adequate documentation that you told the yahoos they were using the wrong database (and other crimes against rational science) may, at some point, be needed to uphold your good name.

I hope very soon you are working somewhere that has gotten beyond the 'draw the curve, then plot your data' technique (that got some of us through Bonkestry)

Here's to a fast resolution on the new job opportunities! }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Bonkestry was way too long ago to remember 'draw the curve, then plot your data' technique. I passed Chem 1 (what it was called back in 1972; I think they "upped" the number later on to make it seem more impressive) because the night before the final exam, my suite-mate Chuck (who was from Durham, NH) asked me a question about the sample final that was in the workbook. At first glance I thought it was simple and I was completely wrong. We then spent 4 hours going through the entire sample exam, getting it done properly (mostly by Chuck, but I actually learned what he was showing me). Much to our surprise, the real final the next morning was the exact same questions with the numbers changed! I Aced the final*! Thanks entirely to Chuck (whose last name I don't recall). And boy, were we disappointed that the 2nd semester final for Chem 2 WASN'T just like the sample final in the workbook.


*In those days, the grade depended equally on four parts - lab work grade, weekly quizzes from the sessions with the TA, the 2 or 3 "real" tests and the final. The final could replace any of the other grades if it was higher, and I did miserably on the "real" tests, so Acing the final was big! Huge!

[Lavabe]

Boy, you leave this thread alone for a day, and look what happens!

YSFI!!

More to the point, CYA BIG TIME!! I think you're safe on the original manuscript, as you alerted authorities. I think you're okay with Windsor's email/cc to death strategy. She is 100% correct... the first thing they'd otherwise do is blame it on you after you leave.

Will PM you later.

[lawgrad91]

Love, love, love the YSFI.

I'm dealing with some SF's now myself. Instead of spending my time working on a rape case involving a 13 year old, our newest murder, or the robbery and abduction case I started dealing with Thursday, I got to spend my week explaining, through a phenomenal series of emails, to a disbarred attorney, some Garden Club woman, and the head of the SPCA that (1) the dog warden knows what he's doing, (2) I know what I'm doing, (3) they don't know sh*t about the law, and (4-and most ironically of all) I am not a cold-hearted evil person who hates dogs. I now have to go to work early on Thursday for a meeting with these fine individuals, along with PHB (who has my back for a change) and three or four members of the Sheriff's Office. I hope the deputies sit on the other side of the table from me, so I won't be tempted to disarm one of them and shoot the SPCA woman or the disbarred attorney. (I don't know Ms. Garden Club at all, so I have no idea whether I will want to shoot her.)

[Turk]

I keep reading YSFI and putting "idiot" in for the letter I. May I offer another acronym for your consideration?

PICNIC - Problem in chair, not in computer

Usage: "There's nothing wrong with that software, it's a PICNIC error."

[windsor]

Love, love, love the YSFI.

I'm dealing with some SF's now myself. Instead of spending my time working on a rape case involving a 13 year old, our newest murder, or the robbery and abduction case I started dealing with Thursday, I got to spend my week explaining, through a phenomenal series of emails, to a disbarred attorney, some Garden Club woman, and the head of the SPCA that (1) the dog warden knows what he's doing, (2) I know what I'm doing, (3) they don't know sh*t about the law, and (4-and most ironically of all) I am not a cold-hearted evil person who hates dogs. I now have to go to work early on Thursday for a meeting with these fine individuals, along with PHB (who has my back for a change) and three or four members of the Sheriff's Office. I hope the deputies sit on the other side of the table from me, so I won't be tempted to disarm one of them and shoot the SPCA woman or the disbarred attorney. (I don't know Ms. Garden Club at all, so I have no idea whether I will want to shoot her.)

The dog is right, the people are wong. Don't know anything about the case, but bad dog usually equates to stupid people.

[windsor]

I keep reading YSFI and putting "idiot" in for the letter I. May I offer another acronym for your consideration?

PICNIC - Problem in chair, not in computer

Usage: "There's nothing wrong with that software, it's a PICNIC error."

PICNIC has always been one of my favorites...my most favoritest IT acronym is best SAID...so everyone say this outloud

Eye Dee Ten Tea Error.



I have use TAMO in flow charts for software design...Then A Miracle Occurs



I did not coin YSFI - it was actually used by a consultant after a conference call with me (he said something unbelievble stupid, showing his total ignorance of our business model) my response was civil and direct but as he said later the YSF,I was dripping from my tone of voice. It becamse a tag line for that project.

[Ima Facultiwyfe]

This ol' gal is peddling as fast as she can and is STILL having trouble keeping up with all you brainiacs out there in the real world. This thread is fascinating. Who said soap operas are dead?
Love, Ima

[DevilAlumna]

I keep reading YSFI and putting "idiot" in for the letter I. May I offer another acronym for your consideration?

PICNIC - Problem in chair, not in computer

Usage: "There's nothing wrong with that software, it's a PICNIC error."

I'm more familiar with PEBKAC - Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair. My usual recommended solution is to RTFM.

[windsor]

I'm more familiar with PEBKAC - Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair. My usual recommended solution is to RTFM.

Rather than RTFM is opt for "Use the Source, Luke"

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I'm more familiar with PEBKAC - Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair. My usual recommended solution is to RTFM.

Rather than RTFM is opt for "Use the Source, Luke"

When in doubt, reboot. Works for cell phones too!

[Turk]

I keep reading YSFI and putting "idiot" in for the letter I. May I offer another acronym for your consideration?

PICNIC - Problem in chair, not in computer

Usage: "There's nothing wrong with that software, it's a PICNIC error."

I'm more familiar with PEBKAC - Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair. My usual recommended solution is to RTFM.

ooh, forgot about that one; my guys must have been dyslexic. We had it as EBCAK - "Error Between Chair and Keyboard"

[ArkieDukie]

I would have sent it. Sometimes you need to waive the WTA test in favor of a YSFI (you stupid f#ck, implied). The fine and honored art of calling someone a stupid f. without actually saying it.

Given that you have new job irons in the fire (although nothing firm yet) I would continue to raise issues like this as politically as possible with all the documentation you can muster. I have no doubt that once you leave for greener protein pastures you WILL be subject to the age old "blame the one that left". I am assuming that your field of expertise is relatively small...so having adequate documentation that you told the yahoos they were using the wrong database (and other crimes against rational science) may, at some point, be needed to uphold your good name.

I hope very soon you are working somewhere that has gotten beyond the 'draw the curve, then plot your data' technique (that got some of us through Bonkestry)

A follow-up: I finished The Minion's data analysis today and sent the results to her. Her "highly purified" protein was 4th or 5th on the listed protein assignments from the broad database. This means it was the 4th or 5th most abundant protein in her sample, behind a completely different protein, an internal standard, and a couple of different keratins (hair, skin, etc). The message I sent was something to the effect of, "Here's the custom database search you requested, along with a search of a broader database. The results of the search against the broad database will give you an indication of the purity of your sample." How's that for a YSFI message?

I had an epiphany yesterday (highly appropriate, since yesterday was epiphany). The message that resulted in my removal from PPI and The Minion's project was a definite YSFI message. It was the message in which I explained to her why it was a bad idea to take the absolute value of a list of numbers before calculating the mean. The message was copied to PHB, who had told her that her computational error didn't matter. Moral to the story: sending YSFI messages in which your boss is one of the SFs may not be a wise career move. Unless, of course, you wish to be removed from a particularly annoying project.

[ArkieDukie]

I keep reading YSFI and putting "idiot" in for the letter I. May I offer another acronym for your consideration?

PICNIC - Problem in chair, not in computer

Usage: "There's nothing wrong with that software, it's a PICNIC error."

I'm more familiar with PEBKAC - Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair. My usual recommended solution is to RTFM.

ooh, forgot about that one; my guys must have been dyslexic. We had it as EBCAK - "Error Between Chair and Keyboard"

I like all of these and will have to remember them. It occurs to me that most of my funny anecdotes involving NuBarbie are of the PICNIC/PEBKAC/EBCAK variety. Since they're usually instrument related, maybe the latter two are better than the first.

I think it is correct usage to say that I have addressed NuBarbie's PEBKAC issues with YSFI responses.