Slashdot Mirror
What Do You Want in a Job Website?
antifoidulus asks: "After reading some complaints about monster.com from both the perspectives of job seekers and employers it struck me as how, even in 2006, most job sites are incredibly poor at what they do. So I ask my fellow Slashdot readers, both job seekers and employers, what do you really want in a jobs web site? What features are totally lacking in the current crop? Also, what aspects of the current systems do you love/hate?"
Jobs not recruiters..
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Most sites ask you the geographic areas you want to work in, but the recruiters who troll the sites don't listen. I want a job site where when I check "Sacramento" I don't get called for jobs in San Jose or "the Bay Area". That's NOT Sacramento folks, learn to read! While you're at it, how about banning recruiters who aren't from the area they're hiring for? I hate it when some schmoe recruiter in North Carolina is trying to fill a job in California...
More jobs. If you aren't searching nationally (which most people aren't) or leaving the fields blank ; there aren't more than one or two matches. Even these are mostly fake jobs listed from headhunters and placement agencies looking to expand their pool of workers. I'd also like to see less competition between the job websites. I don't like checking 15 websites for a job every day.
PS: For Canadian bums like me that are looking for a job, check this site out.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
I'm sick of seeing "open" or "market" for salary ranges.
I'm sick of seeing job postings that want someone to be experts in Cisco, Windows administration, Exchange, AD, Linux, Solaris, Oracle, SAP, and perl scripting experts for $60k.
I'm sick of seeing job postings with technology contradictions, including requiring more years of experience with a technology than it's been around.
I'm sick of seeing job postings for jobs that don't exist -- find a way to penalize recruiters who post non-existant jobs for resume collection.
I'm sick of seeing job postings which misclassify jobs entirely. Find standardized ways of describing a position, like using SAGE's job descriptions -- http://www.sage.org/pubs/8_jobs/core.mm
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
... I really don't use job sites, but I've poked around a bit.
1) ban recruiters
2) manditory salary ranges
3) must include company name so I can do research
4) use a good set of standard tags (travel, COBOL, PMI, etc)
5) list when you're deciding to award the job
Places like Monster only allow you to pick metropolitan areas. I want to be able to stick in MY location and see all jobs that fit my criteria within a 45 minute commute.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
As in, things for a bright college student to do, without needing 10 years of experience in everything. I mean, I get the point, but I *know* that I'm capable of doing a few things here and there.
Monster seems to feel that a solution to the problem already exists -- you can turn off the ability for others to send you unsolicited offers. But I want people to be able to offer me jobs, provided it's a job that I'd have some chance of being interested in. What really needs to exist is an enhanced set of filters for the unsolicited offers. I should be able to filter people who don't provide a salary range, for example, or don't meet a minimum salary determined by me. I should be able to include in my summary conditions for that contact. Or filter by industry. Or job category. Or any of a dozen other factors that I should be able to control.
Then you need a feedback mechanism to rate the quality of the unsolicited offers -- both on a community level, perhaps like eBay ratings, and back to the job board, perhaps to notify them when someone has falsified information to evade filters.
Of course, the problem with all this is that the job posters pay the bills. Profitable job sites are going to limit the employers as little as possible so long as they can maintain some illusion of job seeker-focus.
Job sites need some means to prevent recruiters simply doing keyword searches through resumes, but never reading past your phone number.
Nothing is more annoying than some C-average H.R. major who didn't even bother to look at your name until the phone was ringing, say "So tell me what it is you do!"
I do not want such morons to "schedule some face time" with me, nor do I want them to "touch base" to "keep you up to speed."
-CR
"So is the BSD licence even more 'free' (than GPLv2)? Yes. Unquestionably." --Linus Torvalds (TinyURL.com/2vugzl)
No I do NOT want to work from home giving away free satilite dishes. No I am NOT interested in medical billing nor do I think it is an exciting career. Yet both of these, along with many others like them, come up in a search for information technology jobs on Monster.
http://www.CelloFourteGroupie.net
I'll tell you what I'm fscking sick of. Every single book/pamphlet/magazine/website/list of job seeking suggestions threatens a job seeker with death if they don't format everything perfectly, spell everything perfectly, and make your cover letter and resume look like a shining diamond. Yet the job postings I see on every single job site, whether it's craigslist or somewhere really formal, are pieces of shit.
They're spelled incorrectly, they have horrible grammar. There are inconsistencies with the technology (four years of something that has only existed for 2). They're inconsistent with how they want you to contact them: the company wants a direct email, the job site wants you to go through their website, and the recruiter wants you to go through them.
I swear to god, companies need to get their shit together if they expect the same from us. When I'm looking for a job, that's really number one in my book, is the company even focused enough to create a coherent job post. Because there are plenty that are shit, and I'm just going to look right past you.
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
1. I want to know if it's a recruiter or a direct job. I do not mind recruiters, but often they are just "fishing". And I do not want to waste my time.
... And a position for 12.35 an hour in a call center will just be wasting all of our times. Or a "guru" position at 130k .. You will get much closer applications if you place the low and high of what a position will pay. I don't like "negotiating" my job the way I would a used car. Although it seems that some recruiters and used car salespeople come from the same school.
.. You did it to your self.
2. I want to know where the position is. I don't want to waist my time with "Seattle area" When I live on the East side and a job in Tacoma would be a 2 hour commute each way.
3 I want to know how much they expect to pay for a position. I make over 60k a year in IT
The point is that if you low ball my salary sure you might be able to make more in your commission. But When I get the offer I was expecting from a competitor well
This is exactly what happened to me in my last 2 jobs. I accepted a "lowball" offer to get me out of the position I was in. After 4 months (and no promised review after 90 days that was supposed to come with the salary I should have gotten the whole time). I was recruited over to a great position I now have. I do not expect to be leaving any time soon.
Well it's just my opinion.
It just seems that the applicants I get are rarely suited for the position they're applying for. They seem to just fire resumes out of a shotgun. They don't have any experience in the specific field (database driven websites), or even in the general technologies (when to use a left join in SQL). At this point in the web's history, is it really too much to expect people who already know this stuff? And for them to be easy people to work with? The catches are just too few and far between.
.sig for heaven's sake!
It sounds from the other posts here that the would-be-employees have similar compaints from the other side. Too much noise, not enough signal. Recruiters annoy me too. What can these job sites do about it? Hell if I know. I'm too busy trying to hire people!
I've been relegated to including a link to my company's tech jobs page in my slashdot
Cheers.
There's nothing I hate more than having to go through some recruiter (who often turns out to be a scumbag). What I want in a jobsite is an actual connection between job seekers and employers, with no middlemen getting in the way. The recruiters are a problem in more ways than I can count.
AccountKiller
Is that job sites are not designed to get employers and employee's together. Instead they are designed to keep them appart until one or both parties (depending on the site) cough up the necessary dough to "see" a little of what the other offers. More effort has gone into hiding one from the other than has gone into enabling one to see the other.
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
I know a few recruiter/head hunters have found me using some technology that searches the web for resumes. (Hint - Set up a web page and put your resume there.) I even got spammed by one. He had his introduction letter automated. It was even automated for replies I believe. After I received the same letter three times, I complained and they stopped coming.
A better technology than all the online job boards would be one that searches the internet for your resume. Maybe this would be a google resume search. If you have a useful website, your resume would probably be higher in the rankings. I don't know -- it's a start. In the mean time, I've just started applying to everything that's even remotely related to my skills.
Don't be ridiculous, it is the fault of the search engine (designer). Specifically, why are people still relying on free text search? It indicates a lack of knowledge of the marketplace. A long time ago people invented relational database systems, which let you have tables with fields. Fields can hold different values and you can put validation on those values. Hmm, how about a table called prog_lang with an row for each programming language in demand in the market place? Let's have a couple of columns, lang_id and lang_text. My bet is that if you added a row with lang_id 1 and lang_text c, then you added another row with lang_id 2 and lang_text c++, you might just be able to distinguish between C and C++. Hey, then you might be able to populate a web search form with check boxes and radio buttons rather than an empty text input box expecting stupid C AND NOT (VB OR C++) strings.... and if a job comes in requiring a programming language which isn't listed, ADD A ROW!
FFS.
Of course the reason no-one does this is because it seems like too much effort. It's much easier, apparently, just to leave the skills matching to the initial phone call. For instance, I was called by a recruiter this morning who spent 30 minutes asking stupid questions 99% of which were covered in the CV (resume for yanks) I sent last night and to which she was responding. I had to bite my lip from saying "Did you even READ my CV? Do you actually know anything about the skills required in this job?" because she hadn't and she didn't. Yet she is in a position of power over my next pay cheque!! And she tried to make me feel that I might not be up to scratch for the job. She didn't even know what was involved in doing the job! That makes me angry.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.