Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

What Do You Want in a Job Website? 642

Posted by Cliff
from the how-would-you-improve-it dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What Do You Want in a Job Website?

Comments Filter:
  • To be blunt... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by B5_geek (638928) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:31AM (#14765596)
    Jobs not recruiters..
    • by needacoolnickname (716083) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:37AM (#14765615)
      I couldn't find a moderation category for Hell Yeah!
    • Re:To be blunt... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by pchan- (118053) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @02:26AM (#14765794) Journal
      I'd like to be able to search for the C programming language. Not C++. C. Note that I've yet to find a search tool capable of handling a search for "C" without a million pages of unrelated crap.
      • But of the idiot who chose C as a name for a product. It is the same with menu product names that are also real words. Even happens with products that are not real worlds but have come in common use. PHP is of course also the extension used for php pages and so any search will not just return jobs requiring PHP but also jobs who got a url with php.

        Until we get search engines that can determine meaning from context we are stuck as long as people keep naming their products in stupid ways.

        We may joke about a

        • by sydb (176695) <michael@wd21HORSE.co.uk minus herbivore> on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @09:18AM (#14766895)
          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.
        • I hear ya friend. One time I was having trouble with a table in a TeX document and (without thinking) Googled "LaTeX command table" for help.

          The results were neither pretty, nor work-safe.

        • I noticed a site called mkt10.com that is from the former founder of monster, or career builder or whatever. Anyways it is set up more like a dating website, where you are matched to your employer via skills you have vs skills he's looking for.

          There are several reasons I really hope this gets off the ground. It is private, in that your resume is not out there for your current employer to see, (unless you want it to be). It is localized. It should theoretically be easier to screen out recruiters, because
    • I second that... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Vellmont (569020) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @02:40AM (#14765821)
      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.
      • As a recruiter I'm surprised that people are so negative against us. I know there are some scumbags out there, but from the large amount of responses in post I'd guess that most of the "scumbag" recruiters are hanging out on the jobsites. Your job is a huge part of your life - many of us spend more time in our jobs than with our families. Personally, I think that people who go about finding a wife/ husband online are inviting danger and heartbreak. Finding a job is pretty much just as an important life
      • Re:I second that... (Score:4, Informative)

        by arivanov (12034) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @10:03AM (#14767130) Homepage
        Well... I have always wanted job websites to allow you to blacklist known scumbags and filter out their job ads. Unfortunately it is the scumbags which pay the website, not the jobseeker. So, as usually, whoever pays calls the shots. These features are not going to happen.
    • Re:To be blunt... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by basic0 (182925) <mmccollow@yahoUMLAUTo.ca minus punct> on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @03:18AM (#14765922)
      I couldn't agree with this more. I won't even look at job postings by recruiters. If an employer is serious about hiring, I fully expect them to be involved in the hiring process from the start. This Homer Simpson "can't someone else do it?" attitude completely turns me off of whatever job it may be.

      On a related note, I wonder how long it'll be until the job recruiters are outsourcing their positions overseas so even THEY are barely involved. I hear capitalism works pretty well when jobs disappear and nobody can afford to buy anything.
    • Re:To be blunt... (Score:3, Informative)

      by mnmn (145599)
      "what do you really want in a jobs web site?"

      Try Jobs.

      And not the Apple type.
  • by mr_zorg (259994) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:34AM (#14765606)
    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...
    • You think that's bad? How about when you can only specify what state? Try living in Los Angeles and getting notified for a string of jobs in Northern California! Not once did that site send me a link to a job within 100 miles of me, let alone the same county.

      The problem, I suspect, is that the site was set up by somebody born and reaised in New England where the states are much smaller and has never been to the rest of the country.

      • The problem, I suspect, is that the site was set up by somebody born and reaised in New England where the states are much smaller and has never been to the rest of the country.

        Even that does not excuse such an error. The roads in this part of the country tend to be narrower, windier, twistier. Yes, we have Interstate highways up here in the northeast, but they are retrofits, and there are a lot of places that ar just flat out inconvenient to get to.

        Besides that, the states are still big enough not t

    • I work for a company that builds niche career websites for local tech industries (so get ready for a plug). We're trying to solve the problems that people are having with tradition job boards. We cover most major Canadian cities at the moment.
      1. Lots of jobs
      2. Website is targetted to only one geographic area
      3. Only tech-related positions
      4. Link directly to the job postings on corporate websites
      5. Filled/New positions updated daily

      You can see an example for Vancouver here: http://www.techjobsvancouver.com/ [techjobsvancouver.com] 1,297 t

  • I want... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...naked recruiters!
  • For once, I hope I can see a site that allows me to fully customize my CV, but not through a standardized web form.
  • Free Research (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cwj123 (16058)
    Mmmm. Free market research...
  • More Real Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eightyford (893696) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:39AM (#14765623) Homepage
    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 [jobbank.gc.ca] out.
  • I want... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:39AM (#14765625)
    A job that pays me to tastes coffee and doughnuts with a good wage, benefits and an early retirement plan.
  • Sanity checking? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PornMaster (749461) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:40AM (#14765628) Homepage
    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 [sage.org]
    • I'm sick of seeing "open" or "market" for salary ranges.


      I definitely agree on this one. If they are in the market for a new employee, they know how much the are willing to pay.
    • And when they say "market" they never seem to mean it. I was interviewed for a company that had in their job description "market/competitive pay". According to various sources (salary.com, that robert half report [roberthalftechnology.com], etc). According to those sources the "market" pay should have been ~$60-65k.

      So, at the interview it came out that the pay for the position was... $17.50/hour.
    • 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.

      What, are you saying you're a Cisco certified engineer and don't also have an MCSE? Well hell, who is going to administer our domain controllers and reboot the printer when the jobs get stuck? I'm afraid we're waiting for someone a little more qualified... i.e. even though we're advertising for a network engineer we're really l

  • by Alien54 (180860) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:42AM (#14765635) Journal
    none of these jobs that go like this:

    Entry level position, must have 5 years experience in .net 2.0, 4 years in perl 6, ....

    and so on for an absurd laundry list of arbitrary skils which tell me that the people hiring are either clueless or insane.

    • none of these jobs that go like this:

      Entry level position, must have 5 years experience in .net 2.0, 4 years in perl 6, ....

      and so on for an absurd laundry list of arbitrary skils which tell me that the people hiring are either clueless or insane.


      Or: http://timetraveler.ytmnd.com/ [ytmnd.com]
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Good one. I know some guys with ~3 years of experience, or so, with .net 2.0, but they wrote the damned thing, so they hardly count...

      Also, can we start interviewing people based on their freakin' TALENT rather than some arbitrary laundry list of buzzwords? As an employer, do you want to hire the guy that just happened to read the "Ruby for Dummies" book last week or do you want to hire the guy who can become an expert in any language he doesn't yet know within a matter of weeks?
  • by mayhemt (915489) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:42AM (#14765637)
    The job descrptions should include the reviews/comments from current employee/s (could be anonymous) who is/are working in the same position as the seeking title. That would clearly tell the aplicant what to expect or how many years to stick with the company. Forget about the description of jobs posted by original head hunter. they dont know the field work, nor the results of the job. just some lazy ass manager sends them requirements & headhunters add some bells & whistles & post on sites/newspapers. we need honest comments from current employees.
  • As a contractor.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BlueBoxSW.com (745855) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:42AM (#14765642) Homepage
    ... 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
  • Commute Range (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RingDev (879105) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:43AM (#14765645) Homepage Journal
    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
  • by tcjohnson (949147) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:48AM (#14765653) Homepage
    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.
    • I always find it funny when they require ten years of experience and don't pay nearly enough money. I actually just had an interview this morning for an electronics assembly position that pays minimum wage! I have friends with only their highschool and no experience making 4 times that much in unskilled labor positions.
  • RSS feeds (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mini me (132455) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:49AM (#14765656)
    I want the jobs to come to me.

    I already subscribe to a couple of job sites that offer feeds and have had great results using them. I wouldn't even consider manually searching for jobs at this point.
  • by thparker (717240) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:50AM (#14765665) Homepage
    Monster seems to be the worst offender here, but there's no control or accountability when you're contacted with a job "offer". I get contacted with ridiculous job postings that are clearly not appropriate based on the information I've disclosed in my resume.

    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.

    • Makes me wonder if a job site could stay afloat with just advertising revenue and donations.

      Perhaps only if actual jobs were posted directly from companies, there would be far fewer listings, and that would make it much cheaper by default.

      Also, if the site started with a narrow focus, such as the IT professions, then it might be a lot easier to maintain and financially support.
  • by JanneM (7445) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:50AM (#14765666) Homepage
    Jobs, of course. Categorized and cross-indexed in any which way you could think of, so it's straightforward to narrow down to only those posts that actually are of interest. You want job listings for network management in east London, with at least such and such base salary, weekends and nights acceptable, at a small or medium-sized firm at least two years old, then that's what you should get. And it should optionally match your profile to explude listings that are not a fit for you (not enough experience, no bus drivers' licence, etc.).

    The trick to a good service is to make the listings reliable and complete. If a company posts hugely inflated requirements (must have 200+ years experience coding Java) in the hope of attracting top people, you're going to miss valid openings since they'd be filtered (you only have 180 years on your resume). Likewise, no employer is happy wading through exaggerated, not-quite-lying resumes to find people that actually are qualified. Figure out how to make it _easy_ to be honest. Make all listings anonymous, would perhaps help? Not sure about that.

    Also, make all listing open-ended. Don't have a set of checkboxes for what languages you know (or seek), for example - no matter how many you list, you will miss some, and people will wnat to qualify their answer more than a yes/no check. Let people write in the language, and a one-line comment about their ability (or needed ability). Make it open-ended, then do text searching for matching. Make any graded description, like skill level, very vivid and concrete. An abstract 1-5 scale can and does mean very different things, but if you make each point descriptive, with an example, it's easier to find a common level. Oh, and three levels is almost always sufficient for ability descriptions. Any finer graduation will be a matter for the full-size CV and interviews.

    Ideally, there should be a comments section on each and every company, and each and every job seeker a'la Amazon, so you can evaluate the general desireability asa workplace or workmate. But of course, job seekers and small firms will not get enough comments to constitute a valid sample, and I'd imagine there'd be more than a few legal headaches providing a comments section as well.

    • What I would really love to see would be a site that aggregates many job sites as well as local sites. If I'm doing a job hunt here in tallahassee I have to look on FSUs website (many jobs available technically they are supposed to post in the local paper as well but not for very long) local classifies, then national websites.
  • by CrtxReavr (62039) <crtxreavr.trioptimum@com> on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:50AM (#14765667)
    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

    • 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 think I spoke with that person recently. I emailed a resume in both pdf and opendocument format to an HR manager recently. I also included a link to my online, html format resume. Guess what the reply email that I recieved 3 weeks later said? "I couldn't open your resume, can you send it in word?". Shit!
  • by Suppafly (179830) <slashdot@suppafl ... net minus author> on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:51AM (#14765674)
    I would love a job website that didn't have 100 US Navy and US Army ads mixed in. If someone were interested in a US Military career, I don't think they would be looking for java programming jobs on dice.com or monster.

    The TOS of any good job site should make it clear to recruiters that they can only post for jobs that they can fill, not generic jobs just to get your resume. Also there needs to be a way to filter recruiters for agencies out.

    Also don't make me sign up for the website to look at jobs or receive email notifications.


  • RSS feeds pointing at specific company or job filters. Instead of getting an email for each crap job, I'd like to have my browser alert me when new openings match my criteria.

    Seth
  • by JourneyExpertApe (906162) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:54AM (#14765682)
    1. Their main revenue source these days seems to be from student loan refinance companies.
    2. They allow bogus "professional training" companies to masquerade as employers.
    3. They don't make it clear how much information others can learn about you (e.g., can a complete stranger find your name, address, phone number, etc.? Can your current employer see that you recently posted your resume?)

    A good job website would work like this. Job seekers can post one or two resumes online for free. Employers can search all resumes for free. They can contact job seekers for a small fee. Job seekers should be able to choose which employers can see their contact info. Any "employer" offering job seekers anything other than a real job or internship should not be allowed to use the site. Predatory student loan refinancing companies should be completely excluded from the site.
  • 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.
  • My list (Score:5, Interesting)

    by smagruder (207953) <stevem@webcommons.biz> on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:55AM (#14765689) Homepage
    1. Allow job seekers to block third-party recruiters from contacting them--as many us want to deal only with direct hiring managers.
    2. Accommodate freelancers and independent contractors seeking small contracts or small jobs.
    3. Import of Open Document Format resume files.
    4. Online maintenance of references--so we don't have to keep asking for references from managers/colleagues/customers every time we do a new job search.
    5. Be vigilant about the accuracy of listings!!!!! (Yes, that deserves five exclamation points)
    6. Provide "company size" (number ranges) and "organization type" (company, non-profit, etc.) filters for searches.
    7. In searches, allow for the exclusion of any industries/companies that have anything to do with the military-industrial complex.
  • Dice.com, sort of (Score:2, Informative)

    by bitflip (49188)
    They advertise here all the time: dice.com isn't bad from my perspective. Monster.com will send you email telling you "there are matches" for your agents, then you have to log in, go through the ads (even if you pay them), and look for the one or two jobs that is a possible match.

    Dice.com sends you an email with all of the links, you don't have to log in, and the ads are unobtrusive. I didn't get my latest job through them, but I did get a couple of interviews. BTW, don't just "apply now"; see if you can
  • by dotpavan (829804)
    yes, I want a pic of the hottest receptionist working there.. so that I get an idea. oh and info on the number of chairs (with dimensions) in the company, incase I switch to the competitor.

    on a serious note, I would like to see the companies NOT to sound so needy of people.. please dont spam my email when I upload my resume.. I should be more desperate than you, not the other way round. and have realistic job requirements (as people have mentioned before me)

  • by Wannabe Code Monkey (638617) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @02:04AM (#14765725)

    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.

  • Easy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @02:05AM (#14765729)
    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.

    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 ... 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.

    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 .. You did it to your self.

    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.

  • I may be in the minority on this but I would like more detailed field/industry categories. Just because I know C++ doesn't mean I want to code tax software. And just because I did QA work on Madden doesn't mean I want to QA yacht off board motor / ground terrain monitoring systems

    This should filter employer replies as well. I would like to say don't allow employers in the following fields... to contact me.

    Not that I think there is anything wrong with other industries. I'm just not interested in them right n
  • Pet Peeves... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by creimer (824291) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @02:11AM (#14765749) Homepage
    I routinely get job offers for Southern California and the East Coast. Although I explicitly state everywhere else I'm looking for something in Silicon Valley/Santa Clara County. It got to the point that I would cut off a recruiter before they get into the sales pitch to ask them where first before wasting time for either one of us.

    Even more annoying is trying to explain to some recruiters why I'm not going to drop my current contract job to run over for an interview in the middle of the day. I'm making money now. Why should I blow off money on the table for an interview that might turn into a job that pays. Some recruiters just don't get this.

    I love the recruiters for Microsoft. At one time, I was considered for five different positions over a two month period that never panned out for one reason or another. Seems like some Microsoft managers need a prade of potential cadidates to be considered at the same time before they decide on anything else. So frustrating...
  • Seriously. However well they might work on a case-by-case basis for certain individuals, they've promoted the commoditization of technical work as much so or more than outsourcing trends.
    1. Haunted by employer-hired third-party recruiters with little real knowledge of the jobs they are placing people into and no interest beyond placing a warm body in a job and collecting the fee. Or, worse, grabbing a resume and disappearing
    2. Application black holes; your resumes go into, but you get no signal back.
    3. On the back
  • by localman (111171) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @02:23AM (#14765783) Homepage
    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.

    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 .sig for heaven's sake!

    Cheers.
    • Amen to that... Just recently I joined the hiring side of the equasion (I'm only 23), and I've been amazed at truly how desperate the companies I've worked at were to find not only _good_ people but the resume's of people who actually had the slightest bit of knowledge in the field

      I've found that the best option is just to find the companies that do the work your interested in and seek them out... look online, find a few companies that are doing work that you might have fun with, and just send a resume un

      • I've been amazed at truly how desperate the companies I've worked at were to find not only _good_ people but the resume's of people who actually had the slightest bit of knowledge in the field

        Wow this is getting old. "Everyone is a mouth-breathing moron. There are no qualified people upon this green spinning Earth." It's getting really REALLY old. Most companies ignore qualified people as a matter of policy. The rest they just lay off as fast as they can fill out the paperwork.

        "We want brilliant sel
    • While I do agree with your point, on the whole thign working both ways, I have this to say to you, sir:

      I applied with you guys when you moved to Vegas a little while ago, even though I already had a gig, so I wasn't shotgunning. I was one of the last three people interviewed, in fact. After I talked systems, enhancements to them, and overall engineering on/for your site for about an hour with big happy smiles from your people all around, and then they tossed me because I couldn't write obfuscated Perl off t
    • By any chance does your job listing include a minimum education level or even worse, a minimum diploma level?

      Because that excludes people like me who are entirely self-taught. I know what you are talking about. I have more then once had to help people with diploma's coming out of there ears with the most basic stuff. Just last week I worked on a volunteer project that a couple of students had done where they had not done a single thing about security (putting get variables unchecked into an sql query, logi

      • by Presence1 (524732) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @11:47AM (#14767943) Homepage
        You have a point that a degree, even from an Ivy League institution, does not automatically confer common sense, an ability to solve problems in the real world in real time, or even a guarantee that the person knows how to think well.

        It is also sadly the case that many schools and so-called professors are a complete waste of time (and that is being generous).

        I also think that most HR people and recruiters suck -- they don't really understand the real requirements, and just match lists of requirements and capabilities (and usually badly at that).

        I have an Ivy degree, and was self taught in the computing field, so I know the value of both. In fact, I feel that being self-taught can be a distinct advantage, because one's thinking might not be as constrained as it would be with a formal education.

        Yet, as an employer (running software companies), I always started my basic requirements for all positions, even front-office support type positions, with a requirement for a four-year degree or commensurate experience. I have occasionally used the "commensurate experience" exception, and was well rewarded with excellent employees, but the hurdle was high.

        Requiring a degree gave me two things as an employer. First, I knew that the applicant had passed the admissions filter and had demonstrated some ability to think and complete work over a period of years. Yes, it is VERY imperfect, but it is something. Second, an education, especially a liberal arts education which we strongly preferred, can dramatically extend your ability to think in different ways; the student should have been systematically exposed to many more modes of thinking than are encountered in ordinary life. All too often this means nothing, and I must still evaluate each case, but my odds are much improved over the pool of the un-degreed.

        The next thing I do with all applicants is to read their writing and resumes as a work product unto itself. How well are they doing the task at hand (of applying for a job)?

        You, unfortunately, would have already failed this screening, even with a degree. Your third sentence jumped out and hit me over the head with the fact that you don't know the difference between possessive and plural, or between "there" and "their", and these are repeated errors. It is not merely being a 'grammar-nazi'. How you communicate matters -- do you expect the computer or someone else to debug your code? You are asking them to do it with your writing.

        I would have to ask two questions: First, if you are this careless or uneducated with your primary language of communication, how careful or educated will you be with a computer language? Second, I will have to worry about every memo leaving your desk making my organization look questionable? Every good thinker I know uses English as a primary tool, does it well, and immediately recognizes the difference in those that do and do not.

        Moreover, I would need to see more than just 'I'm so much better than Jack and Joe with their degrees'. I see good enthusiasm and 'get it done' attitude, but I'd need to see more evidence of precision, rigor and forethought in your work (not that it doesn't exist, but it is not evident here).

        If you want to do well being hired by others, I'd suggest getting a good degree, and being absolutely ruthless with your instructors. Accept nothing less than clear, rigorous instruction. Seek out the instructors others call tough. You are paying for an education -- demand the best. Because, frankly, the degree itself isn't worth crap -- there are plenty of degreed people I wouldn't hire to sweep the floors.

        Alternatively, start your own company. That way, you can hire yourself without a degree, and the people that hire you (your customers) will be more focused on what you can do for them now than what you did in the past. But again, be rigorous -- ask the question "would you hire yourself?", and do whatever it takes to answer that question "Yes" before you start.

        Good luck in whatever path you choose.

    • I've been hunting for a job a few years ago. And I was quite stunned when I saw the expectations. Years and years of experience, degrees, certificates and so on. At first, I didn't apply. I thought they wouldn't take me anyway, since I couldn't fulfill all those requirements (a few, a lot, almost all, but never all).

      Until I realized that this doesn't matter at all. People just slap a ton of requirements on a page and actually it seems they expect that someone who applies can't even come close to them. Inste
  • I'll second this feature, just to emphasize it.

    I'm operating on a bare bones life support income, so I can afford to be picky and think long-term for the position I really want. That means having data in one place: a folder of my inbox (I use rss2email [aaronsw.com] for my feed reading).
  • by aaarrrgggh (9205) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @02:41AM (#14765826)
    I counter with "valid canidates."

    My mid-sized company uses monster. We have open positions that represent 10% of our workforce. We are in dire need for these positions to be filled.

    The boolean mentality does not work for most "good" jobs. Sure, people like the system to pick out the one "perfect" job/canidate, and start on Monday. It doesn't work that way. Typically, a company has minimum requirements and maximum pay in mind, and they want the system to offer the best people within those constraints for further screening.

    A better system would mimic a headhunter more than a classified ad, with an incentive for making the match rather than making the marketplace.

    Sure, you don't want to move, but under what conditions would you reconsider? The salary might be lower, but the fringe benefits could make up for it. You might be hired for a posting below your skills, with the opportunity to advance quickly.

    You really want the killer app? Create a shared database for recruiters like what exists for real-estate. Require screened canidates and offers.
  • By this, I don't just mean 2D, although that is true too. I mean that they use string searches for keywords (so the only useful searches are the ones that just dump ALL the records), there are often multiple categories that mean the same thing (which means you have to search multiple places, to find anything at all), jobs that cross between multiple categories aren't guaranteed to be listed in all of them - and sometimes are listed somewhere else entirely, there is no quantification and job listings are oft
  • I think the biggest problem is perception. I have never used a job-finding website, nor do I plan to. My impression of these services is that any worthwhile employer doesn't need to turn to the internet to find employees. Employers may very well feel the same way. If someone has to go online to find a job, then how valuable can he or she be? I suspect that these 'services' suffer from the same stigma as online dating services. That's the problem. Getting rid of that image would go a long ways. Gear
  • The problem IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Allnighterking (74212) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @02:59AM (#14765878) Homepage
    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.
  • by gblues (90260) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @03:02AM (#14765886)
    Job sites make it incredibly easy for clueless HR people to set up a filter for skills X, Y, and Z. Know a lot about X and Y but not much about Z? Well, you either have to lie about it or get filtered out by a computer!

    My other beef with job sites is the lack of standardization for the application process. The job site should be able to collect the relevant information and pass it on to the hiring manager. When I click "apply now" I should not be taken to some other e-HR site to enter all my information AGAIN and submit my resume AGAIN. Just make it work!

    Lastly, the blatantly bogus listings for the work-from-home scams or ads with insufficient details (like, say, the actual employer). Please.

    Nathan
  • a better way (Score:3, Insightful)

    by goldfita (953969) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @03:03AM (#14765888) Homepage
    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 bother (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mcrbids (148650) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @03:34AM (#14765963) Journal
    Most job sites are companies seeking people that don't have to have any particular skill, just be "good enough" for a specific job. You'll often find decent jobs, with benefits, but you'll NEVER get rich looking for a job at such places, regardless of your skill level. It's a meat market, with very little fat left over for pickings.

    The really good jobs are handed out by executives talking to executives. People who say, over lunch/dinner/golf something like "I'm looking for a NNN, do you know anybody?". If you can be whomever is named 10 seconds after such a question, you are looking at the dream job. At this point, being convenient and "good enough" so that they don't have to worry about it, is very good reason to hire you. Once they have to go thru the hassle of reading 27,000 resumes and interviewing 47 people, whoever they hire is going to start off on the wrong foot, simply because of the hassles involved in hiring.

    Make sure to be damned good at what you do, and be just as good about letting everybody around you know that, without coming off like a prick or a primadonna. Make sure that, when you're looking for work or contracts, that those who know how good you are know that. And, leave your name/business cards everywhere you can.

    That referral is golden - when you get it, you'll end up with customers/employers who don't mind paying you well, and offer you smiles, thanks, and appreciation you while they hand you your check.

    But, once you get to the job site, there's nothing special about you, and it's soooo much more difficult to find the cream!
  • Radical Idea (Score:4, Interesting)

    by squoozer (730327) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @06:41AM (#14766397)

    Here's an idea I hit upon a while back that I think could / would work very well and solve all our problems. This idea is a little UK centric at the moment but it would work everywhere. If you find yourself out of work in the UK you can sign on for the jod seekers allowance (as long as you jump through all the right hoops etc etc yadda yadda). To do this you have to go to the Job Centre. One of the conditions of getting job seekers allowance is that you apply for a certain number of jobs and generally that you spend time looking for jobs at the Job Centre. The problem is that "Job Centre" is all but a dirty phrase in the UK and no "professional" will go near the place. This means that there are _no_ professional jobs listed ever. If you want a professional job you are stuck with scouring the papers and numerous bad jobs websites populated by head hunters. As we all know this takes an age and often means good jobs get missed. I would like to see a new law brought in that _all_ jobs _must_ be advertised in the Job Centre regardless of what the job entails. An employer is free to advertise the job elsewhere as well and do whatever they please it simply must be listed at the Job Centre. There are a number of reasons why I would completely support this legislation 1)it completely insane that we fund Job Centres throughout the country that are not servicing the needs of a huge portion of the population 2)it would give everyone a place where they can find a job 3)it would simplify fnding a job and hopefully as a result this would cut down the number of unemployed or at least the time people spend unemployed 4)it would probably have the side effect of removing many of the fly by night head hunters. I am interested to hear people thoughts on this idea both positive and negative. I might pass it on to our local MP as well even though I don't like the guy.

  • Simple: Ratings (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @07:28AM (#14766513)
    I want a "rating" system. I want to be able to see what my peers said about the person and the company. Think EBay. He wants a job, he's probably been to interviews. What can the interviewer say about him? Is his resume valid? Or is it padded? Or a fabrication?

    Same the other way 'round. Is the job offered really the job offered? Or did you get a "sorry, this position is filled but..." reply for a crappy job? Was it really a recruiter? And if so, is the recruiter legit or one of those that try to shovel people around for money?

    Ratings is what I want!

    And what I'd also love to see is realistic expectiations. You simply WILL NOT find someone with 10+ years of professional .net experience. Especially not someone under 25. According to some requirements, you should've started to code (professional) no later than at 10 years of age. But still managed to make your MD in CS.

    Also, most employees are more than willing to learn. Yes, there are very few ABAP proggers with 5+ years of experience, and those that exist will charge you a fortune. I bet my rear that you will find a lot more people willing to sign any adhesion contracts binding them to you for years as long as you're willing to train them. For a LOT less than training them costs you.

    But of course, all companies wait 'til the very last moment before hiring someone. I have not ONCE been hired when the roof wasn't on fire already. It's NOT really what I consider a dream job when you get like 2 days to familiarize yourself with a few megs of source before you're pressed into the schedule.

Some people claim that the UNIX learning curve is steep, but at least you only have to climb it once.

Working...