<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Disruptors: Fundamental Changes in Recruiting You Need to Put on Your Radar Screen</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ere.net/2006/10/06/the-disruptors-fundamental-changes-in-recruiting-you-need-to-put-on-your-radar-screen/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ere.net/2006/10/06/the-disruptors-fundamental-changes-in-recruiting-you-need-to-put-on-your-radar-screen/</link>
	<description>Recruiting intelligence. Recruiting community.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:58:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jon Williamson</title>
		<link>http://www.ere.net/2006/10/06/the-disruptors-fundamental-changes-in-recruiting-you-need-to-put-on-your-radar-screen/#comment-2011</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Williamson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ere.net/2006/10/06/the-disruptors-fundamental-changes-in-recruiting-you-need-to-put-on-your-radar-screen/#comment-2011</guid>
		<description>Hi, Lou:

I won't claim to have digested the whole article, but this one caught my eye.

You've left out a step.

Before companies can get to 'State of the Art' SEO techniques, they have to START USING SEO at any level.

If I see one more Flash site, where all the jobs are presented by Javascript pop-up windows, a site where all the 'text' is part of an IMAGE, making it invisible to a search engine, a jobs page with a title of 'page', well, you get my drift.

5 years is not enough to achieve that goal, IMHO.  Why?

First, and foremost, companies go to outside designers, or use internal staff, who do not understand SEO.  Web designers are interested in the visual appearance of the site, SEO is concerned with how a search engine spider or bot sees the code.  Those views are 180 degrees opposite each other.

So, a company has to decide up front to integrate SEO into the design of a website.  It is really, really hard to retrofit SEO to an existing site.  Then, they either have to use the SEO firm's designers, if they have them, or get their designers to truly sign on the project.  THAT is not easy.

Finally, SEO, while not quite as arcane as we who do it would like everyone to think, is an art, not an exact science.  It is also a continuing effort, not a one time expense.  Worst of all is the fact that too many SEO firms are using outdated models.......

Ok, I'm putting my soapbox away.

I'd be happy to discuss SEO with anyone offline.

Sincerely,

Jon Williamson  IT Manager, Webmaster, Candidate Recruiting

Williamson Employment Services, Inc.
213 Hilltop Rd. 
St. Joseph, MI 49085 
 
Are you LinkedIn?  If so, send a connection request to linkedin@southrondreams.com!  
If not, visit my profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonwilliamson for information.

My Main Phone: 	269-353-4735	 
Corporate Office: 	269-983-0142 or 800-226-6801 		
Skype:			williamson_jon
email:			jw@williamsonemployment.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, Lou:</p>
<p>I won&#8217;t claim to have digested the whole article, but this one caught my eye.</p>
<p>You&#8217;ve left out a step.</p>
<p>Before companies can get to &#8216;State of the Art&#8217; SEO techniques, they have to START USING SEO at any level.</p>
<p>If I see one more Flash site, where all the jobs are presented by Javascript pop-up windows, a site where all the &#8216;text&#8217; is part of an IMAGE, making it invisible to a search engine, a jobs page with a title of &#8216;page&#8217;, well, you get my drift.</p>
<p>5 years is not enough to achieve that goal, IMHO.  Why?</p>
<p>First, and foremost, companies go to outside designers, or use internal staff, who do not understand SEO.  Web designers are interested in the visual appearance of the site, SEO is concerned with how a search engine spider or bot sees the code.  Those views are 180 degrees opposite each other.</p>
<p>So, a company has to decide up front to integrate SEO into the design of a website.  It is really, really hard to retrofit SEO to an existing site.  Then, they either have to use the SEO firm&#8217;s designers, if they have them, or get their designers to truly sign on the project.  THAT is not easy.</p>
<p>Finally, SEO, while not quite as arcane as we who do it would like everyone to think, is an art, not an exact science.  It is also a continuing effort, not a one time expense.  Worst of all is the fact that too many SEO firms are using outdated models&#8230;&#8230;.</p>
<p>Ok, I&#8217;m putting my soapbox away.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d be happy to discuss SEO with anyone offline.</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Jon Williamson  IT Manager, Webmaster, Candidate Recruiting</p>
<p>Williamson Employment Services, Inc.<br />
213 Hilltop Rd.<br />
St. Joseph, MI 49085 </p>
<p>Are you LinkedIn?  If so, send a connection request to <a href="mailto:linkedin@southrondreams.com">linkedin@southrondreams.com</a>!<br />
If not, visit my profile at <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonwilliamson" rel="nofollow">https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonwilliamson</a> for information.</p>
<p>My Main Phone: 	269-353-4735<br />
Corporate Office: 	269-983-0142 or 800-226-6801<br />
Skype:			williamson_jon<br />
email:			<a href="mailto:jw@williamsonemployment.com">jw@williamsonemployment.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lou Adler</title>
		<link>http://www.ere.net/2006/10/06/the-disruptors-fundamental-changes-in-recruiting-you-need-to-put-on-your-radar-screen/#comment-2009</link>
		<dc:creator>Lou Adler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ere.net/2006/10/06/the-disruptors-fundamental-changes-in-recruiting-you-need-to-put-on-your-radar-screen/#comment-2009</guid>
		<description>All good inputs - thanks. To some degree there's a great deal of speculation involved, but I just got back from HR Tech and much of the 'predictions' are becoming reality. Stay tuned and keep your ideas coming.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All good inputs - thanks. To some degree there&#8217;s a great deal of speculation involved, but I just got back from HR Tech and much of the &#8216;predictions&#8217; are becoming reality. Stay tuned and keep your ideas coming.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Gorham</title>
		<link>http://www.ere.net/2006/10/06/the-disruptors-fundamental-changes-in-recruiting-you-need-to-put-on-your-radar-screen/#comment-1997</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Gorham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ere.net/2006/10/06/the-disruptors-fundamental-changes-in-recruiting-you-need-to-put-on-your-radar-screen/#comment-1997</guid>
		<description>Lou, kudos to you as I believe this is your best work ever.  Couple of points.  I do believe the concept of job boards will go away but not the job posting ads and here is what I mean.  Job boards use a traditional pull style in that they put up mass marketing and advertising and pull people through a landing page and or home page branding themselves.  This concept will go away but the actual job posting won?t.  You always need a starting point with a candidate to gain traction show them something and gain their attention so thus I don? t think this will be replaced.

As far as #6 we are the only company that holds a patent on this process and we scale globally.  So we are proof that companies and clients are already moving in this direction and currently utilizing the technology.  Feel fee to click on this zip link to unzip our video demonstration and how our Push Posting works.  Push Posting demonstration


?New search-engine techniques are being developed by Doug Berg and others that will allow your candidates to find your jobs directly on your career site just by starting at Google, MSN, or Yahoo!. In a few years, even this will change?

Lou, I completely disagree with this statement?see above....read the rest of my post at www.jasongorham.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lou, kudos to you as I believe this is your best work ever.  Couple of points.  I do believe the concept of job boards will go away but not the job posting ads and here is what I mean.  Job boards use a traditional pull style in that they put up mass marketing and advertising and pull people through a landing page and or home page branding themselves.  This concept will go away but the actual job posting won?t.  You always need a starting point with a candidate to gain traction show them something and gain their attention so thus I don? t think this will be replaced.</p>
<p>As far as #6 we are the only company that holds a patent on this process and we scale globally.  So we are proof that companies and clients are already moving in this direction and currently utilizing the technology.  Feel fee to click on this zip link to unzip our video demonstration and how our Push Posting works.  Push Posting demonstration</p>
<p>?New search-engine techniques are being developed by Doug Berg and others that will allow your candidates to find your jobs directly on your career site just by starting at Google, MSN, or Yahoo!. In a few years, even this will change?</p>
<p>Lou, I completely disagree with this statement?see above&#8230;.read the rest of my post at <a href="http://www.jasongorham.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.jasongorham.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Hefferlin</title>
		<link>http://www.ere.net/2006/10/06/the-disruptors-fundamental-changes-in-recruiting-you-need-to-put-on-your-radar-screen/#comment-1995</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Hefferlin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 04:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ere.net/2006/10/06/the-disruptors-fundamental-changes-in-recruiting-you-need-to-put-on-your-radar-screen/#comment-1995</guid>
		<description>Lou -

I like the inflational aspect (10= 14, 8 &#038; 3), and I got to #8 or 9 and figured I better throw in the towell, only to find out (#13) that I don't have to yet.  Is this the enigma of the conundrum, or visa versa?
Jon</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lou -</p>
<p>I like the inflational aspect (10= 14, 8 &#038; 3), and I got to #8 or 9 and figured I better throw in the towell, only to find out (#13) that I don&#8217;t have to yet.  Is this the enigma of the conundrum, or visa versa?<br />
Jon</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Nelson</title>
		<link>http://www.ere.net/2006/10/06/the-disruptors-fundamental-changes-in-recruiting-you-need-to-put-on-your-radar-screen/#comment-1991</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Nelson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ere.net/2006/10/06/the-disruptors-fundamental-changes-in-recruiting-you-need-to-put-on-your-radar-screen/#comment-1991</guid>
		<description>Lou,
    You missed one. Nimblecat.com has a matching (Resume &#038; Job Order) capability that can screen on any criteria the company sets up. In a Beta for a well known search engine company the 'funnel' produced these results:

#2- Job boards that are better integrated with 'matching' services that do not only allow candidates to match their resume to jobs posted and 'push out' a typically not very accurate response profile of jobs listed, but an introverted 'push' that matches the clients job orders to match the candidates skills posted on the career boards (as well as candidate resumes that they have accumulated on their own hosted web sites) and providing a list of 'matches' so that instead of wading through 1,000's of resumes with hundreds of staff, their recruiting staff could be 4-5 times more productive (looking at a summary list of the top candidates in the particular 'bandwidth' 90-100% 'fit', 80-89% 'fit' etc. ) so that one recruiter could work on 3-5 job title postings per day/week based on the amount of candidates the 'match' produced (instead of wading through 1,000's like they do now to try to manually/mentally make a 'match' based on their experience or knowledge of the title/role which may or may not 'match' the picture the hiring manager has for the same role (So communication can be administered more quickly and a new 'understanding' profile/criteria can be put in to more quickly 'drill down' the requirements and improve process (from 45 days beta efforts to &gt;30 days (27-29 average) times as well). SimplyHired type job orders and job descriptions that take on a Google ADSense capability ad to the precision. 
 
?	12,500 resumes received on their web site 
?	   2,500 candidates (80% Reduction - 20% 'top performers) 
?	         73 candidates identified (3% top performers 'fit') 
?	         15 second round interviews (.0012 % 'fit') 
?	            2 Hired so far in week 3 
?	======================================================== 
?	45 day + recruiting/interviewing/hiring cycle reduced to &gt;30 days (27-29) average 
?	Reduced recruiter head count by 1/3 
?	Made current recruiters 4-5 times more productive
?	How long do you think it takes 3, 5,?? Recruiters to get through this many resumes before they identify a ?candidate?, contact them, and BEGIN a 45 day PLUS Interviewing/Hiring process?

With a $34B market in recruiting ATS/Software and systems there is a huge TIME and PRODUCTIVITY Advantage to getting the right people quickly and stopping the 95% of 'sorting' (The Huma Capatilast Blog) that is a time wasting effort. This changes the Job board sales model and recruiting paradigm qucikly and efficiently (Pour in resumes and BAKE) type model that allows efficiency  gains Ten Fold. For $3500 a seat you eliminate 30% of internal staff or make them 1000% more effective.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lou,<br />
    You missed one. Nimblecat.com has a matching (Resume &#038; Job Order) capability that can screen on any criteria the company sets up. In a Beta for a well known search engine company the &#8216;funnel&#8217; produced these results:</p>
<p>#2- Job boards that are better integrated with &#8216;matching&#8217; services that do not only allow candidates to match their resume to jobs posted and &#8216;push out&#8217; a typically not very accurate response profile of jobs listed, but an introverted &#8216;push&#8217; that matches the clients job orders to match the candidates skills posted on the career boards (as well as candidate resumes that they have accumulated on their own hosted web sites) and providing a list of &#8216;matches&#8217; so that instead of wading through 1,000&#8217;s of resumes with hundreds of staff, their recruiting staff could be 4-5 times more productive (looking at a summary list of the top candidates in the particular &#8216;bandwidth&#8217; 90-100% &#8216;fit&#8217;, 80-89% &#8216;fit&#8217; etc. ) so that one recruiter could work on 3-5 job title postings per day/week based on the amount of candidates the &#8216;match&#8217; produced (instead of wading through 1,000&#8217;s like they do now to try to manually/mentally make a &#8216;match&#8217; based on their experience or knowledge of the title/role which may or may not &#8216;match&#8217; the picture the hiring manager has for the same role (So communication can be administered more quickly and a new &#8216;understanding&#8217; profile/criteria can be put in to more quickly &#8216;drill down&#8217; the requirements and improve process (from 45 days beta efforts to >30 days (27-29 average) times as well). SimplyHired type job orders and job descriptions that take on a Google ADSense capability ad to the precision. </p>
<p>?	12,500 resumes received on their web site<br />
?	   2,500 candidates (80% Reduction - 20% &#8216;top performers)<br />
?	         73 candidates identified (3% top performers &#8216;fit&#8217;)<br />
?	         15 second round interviews (.0012 % &#8216;fit&#8217;)<br />
?	            2 Hired so far in week 3<br />
?	========================================================<br />
?	45 day + recruiting/interviewing/hiring cycle reduced to >30 days (27-29) average<br />
?	Reduced recruiter head count by 1/3<br />
?	Made current recruiters 4-5 times more productive<br />
?	How long do you think it takes 3, 5,?? Recruiters to get through this many resumes before they identify a ?candidate?, contact them, and BEGIN a 45 day PLUS Interviewing/Hiring process?</p>
<p>With a $34B market in recruiting ATS/Software and systems there is a huge TIME and PRODUCTIVITY Advantage to getting the right people quickly and stopping the 95% of &#8217;sorting&#8217; (The Huma Capatilast Blog) that is a time wasting effort. This changes the Job board sales model and recruiting paradigm qucikly and efficiently (Pour in resumes and BAKE) type model that allows efficiency  gains Ten Fold. For $3500 a seat you eliminate 30% of internal staff or make them 1000% more effective.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lou Adler</title>
		<link>http://www.ere.net/2006/10/06/the-disruptors-fundamental-changes-in-recruiting-you-need-to-put-on-your-radar-screen/#comment-1990</link>
		<dc:creator>Lou Adler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2006 09:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ere.net/2006/10/06/the-disruptors-fundamental-changes-in-recruiting-you-need-to-put-on-your-radar-screen/#comment-1990</guid>
		<description>I was hoping to stop at 10 but somehow got carried away. 

It's also hard for me to believe the Coghead capability, so in this case, I'm just reporting. It seems that have a way to combine blocks of applications on top of a database to create new apps, so maybe it's not as far-fetched as it seems. I'm in total agreement with your SFA assessment.

Lou

Lou</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was hoping to stop at 10 but somehow got carried away. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s also hard for me to believe the Coghead capability, so in this case, I&#8217;m just reporting. It seems that have a way to combine blocks of applications on top of a database to create new apps, so maybe it&#8217;s not as far-fetched as it seems. I&#8217;m in total agreement with your SFA assessment.</p>
<p>Lou</p>
<p>Lou</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin Snyder</title>
		<link>http://www.ere.net/2006/10/06/the-disruptors-fundamental-changes-in-recruiting-you-need-to-put-on-your-radar-screen/#comment-1989</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Snyder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2006 08:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ere.net/2006/10/06/the-disruptors-fundamental-changes-in-recruiting-you-need-to-put-on-your-radar-screen/#comment-1989</guid>
		<description>Lou- I can't figure out how you got to 10- I looked at the 14, 8, and 3 ideas...... 

There are some interesting items in there, but you have a better chance of building a house in an afternoon than you do a full scale ATS solution.

Salesforce moving into our space may say something about underserved SFA needs in corporate recruiting. 

We might just have to move in on their selling space with some recruiting technology !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lou- I can&#8217;t figure out how you got to 10- I looked at the 14, 8, and 3 ideas&#8230;&#8230; </p>
<p>There are some interesting items in there, but you have a better chance of building a house in an afternoon than you do a full scale ATS solution.</p>
<p>Salesforce moving into our space may say something about underserved SFA needs in corporate recruiting. </p>
<p>We might just have to move in on their selling space with some recruiting technology !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
