ERE Recruiting Blog

“I can't believe that any woman” — stop right here. Whenever anyone on HN ever says this, they're really showing themselves to: 1) lack imagination 2) lack empathy (egregiously so) 3) generally be wrong about whatever follows next What you're doing here is saying you think all women who would have an interest in tech are exactly the same. This is IDIOTIC and you're revealing yourself to seeing women as "a demographic" rather than as 3.6 billion unique individuals who each have their own unique personality, interests, etc. Also, you're revealing your massively shortsighted perspective and utter inability to educate yourself a little on the matter before chiming in with your assertions, but let me help you improve perspective and learn something new: Study: Women Do Not Apply To ‘Male-Sounding’ Jobs http://time.com/48578/study-women-do-not-apply-to-male-sounding-jobs/ You Don’t Know It, But Women See Gender Bias in Your Job Postings http://www.ere.net/2013/03/01/you-dont-know-it-but-women-see-gender-bi… > A scientific study of 4,000 job descriptions revealed that a lack of gender-inclusive wording caused significant implications for recruiting professionals tasked to recruit women to hard-to-fill positions underrepresented by women. So, your assertion that it's "ridiculous goop" has actually been proven (repeatedly) by scientific studies, and is a tremendously stupid assertion to begin with (it hinges on the assumption that all women are exactly…

I don't know, maybe all the big AI companies could come to an agreement not to poach each others employees?[1] It is always surprising to me when billionaire CEOs are complaining that their own employees are min-maxing their earning potential. [1] https://www.ere.net/articles/tech-firms-settle-case-admit-secret-agree…

You're so on point with this comment. Core to our belief is keeping costs low, do our diligence with the companies and candidates, and work on improving how this business is done. Most people don't know recruiting hasn't changed much since Julius Caesar in 55 B.C. I found an interesting article that you might find interesting. https://www.ere.net/history-of-recruiting-part-i/

Here's an interesting article on the right way to measure turnover: http://www.ere.net/2003/10/06/the-right-way-to-measure-turnover/ Tl;dr: provide context.

Note that the job descriptions the site labels as "better", and which it presents as neutral, are those that are explicitly labeled as "feminine" in the source it quotes. If you want to recruit an even ratio of men to women, use actually neutral job descriptions. The original source [1] notes that the experiment only tested female aversion to the masculine job descriptions, and not the other way around. Treat these examples as the ends of a spectrum and shoot for somewhere in the middle. Also, if you do want to recruit using more feminine job descriptions, please don't be as vague as the feminine descriptions given as examples here. Unless you want your female candidates to not know what they are supposed to do. [1] http://www.ere.net/2013/03/01/you-dont-know-it-but-women-see-gender-bi…

we all already know of 99% of the problems! I strongly disagree. Minor changes in wording can affect the gender gap. It doesn't involve anyone saying something inappropriate. http://www.ere.net/2013/03/01/you-dont-know-it-but-women-see-gender-bi… Stereotype threat can dramatically affect test scores. http://www.reducingstereotypethreat.org/definition.html Most people have no idea these things exist. Fixing them takes more awareness than just telling off the "bad guys". You have to change your own behavior.

As a business in 2010 CraigsList derived an estimated 53% of their revenue from job listings, 30% from adult ads, and 17% from rentals. The adult ads went out the window which is going to hurt them, a LOT, in terms of both traffic and revenue. So the more material question is has CL's largest revenue category - job's - been disrupted? I was able to dig up this graph of job mention volume and it appears that CL, in their most important category, is gaining velocity, not slowing down: http://www.jobgoround.com/tools/craigslist-job-trends/ (set to one year) and http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobtrends/trend/q-Craigslist Reference for percentage of revenues: http://www.ere.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Craigslist-2010-revenue.…

This is FRESH from an hour ago. ERE - the biggest name in recruiting - just published the first organic media piece we've gotten for Dreamwork, the platform that effectively launched here + /sideproject on Reddit. --- Backstory tl;dr is that Indeed fired my wife when she was 7 months pregnant, so I built a competing platform out of spite. I posted about it on Reddit and got our first 2,000 users. For the people who commented that the story was fake, you'll be happy to know he did his DD before publishing. ERE — basically THE trade publication the entire recruiting industry reads — just ran a piece on how Indeed's search has quietly gotten worse and who's trying to fix it. We're one of two startups they named, and the founder/CEO wrote it himself. The article: https://www.ere.net/articles/indeeds-search-experience-is-creating-an-… The original show HN post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48044555 Just wanted to keep the community up to date, given this is where it all started.

>And now Pulse. Who would go to LinkedIn for news?? If I had to guess... I expect that right now some large number of LinkedIn users only engage with the site when they have an active job search going - not often. The majority of LinkedIn revenue [1] comes from services sold to recruiters [2]. Recruiters want lots of current, accurate information about potential hires. If people aren't engaging with the site regularly, LinkedIn doesn't have that. Now, I expect that most people who use Pulse use it daily, several times a day in my case. By grabbing Pulse, LinkedIn gets a direct line to the 30M people who use the app and all sorts of information about their habits. They'll now have an attractive, useful app from which to launch engagement with the site in order to improve the core "talent soltutions" product, drive content into their communities and drive better targeted advertising [3] (their second largest source of revenue) [1] back to those users via Pulse. 1:http://www.ere.net/2013/02/07/as-revenue-soars-linkedin-announces-plan… 2: http://business.linkedin.com/talent-solutions 3: http://marketing.linkedin.com/

The PDF is linked to at http://forum.icann.org/lists/jobs-phased-allocation/msg00316.html. As of this moment, the link is now http://forum.icann.org/lists/jobs-phased-allocation/pdf6cGj5KCss2.pdf - I'm not sure if they rotate the URLs to prevent direct-linking or if the original changed. The issue is important because .jobs was originally sold, and marketed, as a guaranteed legitimate source of jobs because only real, verified companies can buy a .jobs - so if you go to microsoft.jobs, you know it will only shows jobs from Microsoft because Microsoft owns it. The new proposal completely does away with this requirement. It would be analogous to stealthily making the Ford Fusion no longer a hybrid. What's worse is that the registrar will get first choice on who gets to buy which domain for how much - which would be a first for any TLD and set a dangerous precedent. A better written piece explaining why this is an important issue (and why rejecting it is important to protecting jobseekers from fraud) is available at http://www.ere.net/2010/07/15/open-letter-to-icann-reject-the-jobs-ame…