Comments on: Internet Search Is Hot: Three Cool Tools

By: Charles Black

Charles Black — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:03:00 +0000

A recruiter?s nature is to be somewhat skeptical. Too many times candidates have said they have one specific skill or another, only to have a recruiter discover upon further questioning, that the candidate had ?only once observed the process?. So, it is natural for recruiters to be somewhat skeptical, maybe even a little cynical. But the topic of this string has gone from a discussion of tools, to a discussion of ethics, or a lack thereof, and spurious assumptions have been throw about.

I have been visiting the ERE for a number of years. I have posted to the forum, participated in many discussions, and written an article or two. I have had personnel communication with Jim and David a few times over the years. I have found them to be conscientious, helpful, and most concerned about ethics and our industry as a whole.

Off-handed comments made among friends can be overlooked, or taken as light-hearted humor by those who know us, and know better. But to suggest underhanded motives on a public forum and publicly state that an article was published and that kickbacks were the motivating reason, is at best an egregious error and rather slanderous.

People should think twice before throwing errant comments on public forums.

By: Michael Homula

Michael Homula — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:11:00 +0000

I have to disagree with Jean on this.

The topcial area of the article is Industry Trends and it is difficult to argue that FlipDog, Indeed, WorkZoo and Eliyon aren’t industry trend leaders/pioneers in this area. It only makes sense for Kevin to talk about them.

I view his article as simply making recruiters aware of 3 of the more innovative and unique tools available to those that practice our craft.

My humble opinion,

By: Jim Dalton

Jim Dalton — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:07:00 +0000

Thanks for your comments Jean. While I too share your concerns about the influence of corporate and government dollars on media organizations at large, the arrangement you’ve alluded to simply does not exist here at ERE.

Ours is a small world, so by necessity our authors will from time to time mention a company, product, or service that also just so happens to be a paid sponsor of ERE. There is absolutely no situation whatsoever in which we accept money from sponsors for mentions in articles in cases like these or in which we get involved in quid pro quo arrangements for the same. This article (as is the case for all articles we publish) is the creative brainchild of the author himself; ERE provides nothing more than editorial input to this or any of the other articles we publish.

There are a very limited number of independent sources of information available for recruiters, ERE is one of the precious few. Support from our advertisers keeps us in business, but it does not in any way impact who, what, or how we publish.

If you or any other member of the community have questions about our policies or practices in this regard, please post them here and I’d be happy to address them. You’re also welcome to email me directly if you’d prefer.

Thanks Jean! Your comments have given me a great opportunity to clear the air, in case there are any misunderstandings in the community at large.