Receive daily articles & headlines each day in your inbox with your free ERE Daily Subscription.

Not logged in. [log in or register]

DirectEmployers Says Half Million Visit .Jobs Boards

by Feb 18, 2011, 6:18 pm ET

Update: DirectEmployers says it uses  Google Analytics for its traffic counts. “Quantcast code is installed on only 162 of the more than 40,000 domains we have operational,” reports DirectEMployers spokeswoman Nancy Holland in an email this morning.  ”In the future we plan to have all .jobs domains tracked by Quantcast.”

DirectEmployers Association, operator of the 40,000 site strong .Jobs Universe, says its network of job boards has welcomed more than half a million visitors in the first three weeks after its launch.

The 550-member association launched an initial few thousand sites the second week of January, and has added thousands more since. The sites are all on the .jobs domain and were the focus of a lengthy battle over the use of geographic, occupational, and combination names in conjunction with the .jobs extension. (The background is available here.)

In its announcement, DirectEmployers said the job board network has some 800,000 jobs from more than 89,000 employers and is growing rapidly. Employers can list jobs at no charge. These are then redistributed among the sites according to the location of the position, and the nature of the job.

DirectEmployers offers this example: “A Providence Health & Services listing for Nurses in Seattle will be distributed to multiple relevant websites, such as www.seattle.jobswww.nursing.jobs and www.seattlenursing.jobs.”

Those sites all branch off the main site, USA.jobs, which is where the job searches are conducted. not directly accessible.

According to Compete.com and Quantcast.com, two independent traffic measuring sites, USA.jobs received significantly under 100,000 unique visitors during the last four weeks.

Quantcast put the number at 88,300 unique visitors for the period Jan. 19-Feb. 18.  Compete put the number at 20,776 uniques for the month of January.  (The sites don’t offer compatible time periods for comparison.)

DirectEmployers may be counting traffic differently than either of those sites. I sent a note asking the contacts listed on the announcement for clarification of the visitor count. I’ll update this post when I hear, which DirectEmployers says will be next week.

The Quantcast counts, according to DirectEmployers, don’t correctly reflect the actual traffic because Quantcast code is not installed on all 40,000 of the .jobs sites. The 500,000 unique visitors was counted by Google Analytics. (See the update at the top of this post.)

This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to offer specific legal advice. You should consult your legal counsel regarding any threatened or pending litigation.

  • http://www.tempworks.com gregg dourgarian

    Does the world really need more career-site-scraping, not-real-job-aggregating websites to truly frustrate job seekers?

  • Michael Phillips

    I’m not necessarily a fan of DirectEmployers but do believe some fair reporting is in order.

    QuantCast reports that the DirectEmployers network had 757K unique visitors in the last 30 days: http://www.quantcast.com/p-f4sayuhJjqv_Q.

    Their network includes domains such as NewYork.jobs, Nursing.jobs, … and isn’t limited to USA.jobs which is what this article bases it’s numbers on.

    Either the writer isn’t knowledgeable enough about job boards to research properly or is intentionally misleading readers.

  • http://www.tempworks.com gregg dourgarian

    Wow Michael, that’s quite an accusation…I don’t often agree with John Zappe on things but his journalism credentials are impeccable.

    The statistic of his that you are criticizing is an entirely different one than yours (USAJOB hits vs DirectEmployment network).

    Whatever…I do have questions for you or anyone that cares to represent DirectEmployers:

    1. Isn’t the very company name DirectEmployers an oxymoron? If an employer wants candidates DIRECTLY, then why route them indirectly through an aggregation site? A ‘Direct’ employer would use SEO/SEM/etc to bring candidates directly to its career site.

    2. If DirectEmployers is in fact ‘direct’, then why do almost all the search results (which take forever ie 10+ secs) point to intermediaries like staffing companies?

  • Michael Phillips

    Gregg,
    The title of the article is:
    “DirectEmployers Says Half Million Visit .Jobs Boards”, not “DirectEmployers Says Half Million Visit USA.Jobs.”

    I do not represent DirectEmployers in any form or fashion. I am however tired of reading these skewed “Articles”, which are written to obscure the facts of the situation.

  • http://www.directemployers.org Bill Warren

    I agree with Mr. Phillips, who although admittedly is not a fan of DirectEmployers, says:

    “…(I)do believe some fair reporting is in order.”

    He further states, “Their network includes domains such as NewYork.jobs, Nursing.jobs, … and isn’t limited to USA.jobs which is what this article bases it’s numbers on”.

    He continues, “Either the writer isn’t knowledgeable enough about job boards to research properly or is intentionally misleading readers.” — Which, by the way, I believe is a combination of both.

    I highly recommend to Mr. Zappe: “Retire from your pseudo journalism career and go full time into “hiking in the California mountains or competing in canine agility events”. your life will be far less frustrating and much more satisfying. Unfortunately we have listened to his nonsensical ranting and raving about .Jobs for over a year.

    Our Beta test proved .Jobs will be very successful, it’s real and it’s here to stay! Not only that, it is wanted by the two most important stakeholder groups in the online recruiting industry: employers and job seekers.

    I invite John to go to http://www.universe.jobs and learn more about this natural evolution of Internet recruiting.

    We have an open invitation to Peter Weddle, John Boxwood, the “Coalition”, and other fee-based job boards, (although they chose to oppose the .Jobs build-out rather than participating in the RFP process) to join us in working together to make .Jobs work efficiently and effectively for everyone, including themselves, employers and job seekers, in the online recruiting industry.

    Bill Warren
    Executive Director
    DirectEmployers Association

  • http://rehaul.com Lance Haun

    Addressing Mr. Phillips accusation in particular, I’d like to point to a little more detail:

    http://www.quantcast.com/p-f4sayuhJjqv_Q/traffic/sites

    These are all of the sites that are included in the traffic number you cited. It includes JobCentral (both the .com and .org version) and they make up the majority of the unique visitors cited (about 530k of the 735k total). This is no surprise as JobCentral has been a pretty consistent performer (you can check out the history of both). I would not consider JobCentral part of the .jobs universe though so it seems unfair to include those numbers. They’ve maintained relatively steady numbers without the addition of .jobs.

    Now of course, that leaves 200k+ that remain unaccounted for and it would be easy to assume that most of those belong to .jobs universe. Indeed, the two biggest sites are usa.jobs (with 87k) and universe.jobs (with 44k) with a total of 131k between the two.

    However, there are some included on Quantcast that don’t belong in the calculation there. For example, the DTE Energy jobs site (dteenergy.jobs) is the largest individual site with almost 9k uniques but individual company sites aren’t part of the .jobs universe. I also found .jobs sites for McGraw-Hill, ExxonMobil, Newell Rubbermaid, CACI, RiteAid and Xerox that are included in the total tally.

    Now other than the usa.jobs and universe.jobs sites, there are many that are included that are part of the universe. For example pennsylvania.jobs (5.2k), california.jobs (3.7k), and florida.jobs (2.7k) as geographic ones or nurse.jobs (1.9k), nursing.jobs (1.3k) and sales.jobs (1.3k) for profession based ones.

    According to Quantcast, DirectEmployers has quantified 162 sites in their network (quantifying is allowing Quantcast to directly measure site stats instead of rough estimates).

    I think rather than partaking in personal attacks against Mr. Zappe, it might be better to figure out why Quantcast’s numbers show that the .jobs universe has less than 200k uniques (far closer to Mr. Zappe’s numbers than the 500k DirectEmployers cites). Especially since DirectEmployers has installed Quantcast code into their sites to track visitors.

    Now there may be some logical reasons for this:

    1. Quantcast isn’t installed on all of their sites – Certainly a possibility. It looks like most states are being tracked as are many countries. I don’t know how many profession specific listings they have so I don’t have an estimate on how many are included. But there are a lot of sites being tracked. That happens since they are building out a lot of sites.

    2. They aren’t getting numbers from the same place – Numbers don’t line up perfectly. Very good possibility. Still, that wouldn’t explain that big of difference.

    3. They count visitors differently – Quantcast tries to track unique individuals. It’s imperfect. I can certainly see how they may have different numbers than Quantcast. Depending on how you track a visitor to a website, they could count the same people more than once or Quantcast may be missing some.

    I can see all of these being a factor in the numbers being different. Why that happened is something that only DirectEmployers can answer. Hopefully they will!

    What is interesting to me is how this will sustain over the next 6-12 months. .Jobs has benefited from some nice publicity about the rollout of the sites including mentions in the Washington Post, US News & World Report, and CNN among quite a few others. That’s great but as Mr. Warren contends, they are looking at the long term. A big launch is good but sustained increases is going to be more important if .jobs is truly paradigm changing.

  • Steve Crumley

    Bill,

    This is a bold comment! “I highly recommend to Mr. Zappe: “Retire from your pseudo journalism career and go full time into “hiking in the California mountains or competing in canine agility events”. your life will be far less frustrating and much more satisfying. Unfortunately we have listened to his nonsensical ranting and raving about .Jobs for over a year.” Wow! I may or may not agree with his opinion, but I wouldn’t bash him personally for expressing it! You show your true colors here.

    I, for one, am a former member of DE. I did not renew because I have ethical questions. I think there is an ethical problem with you being chairman of the non-profit DE and the for-profit employMedia group. I’ve expressed this concern many times directly to your staff and never gotten a straight answer.

    In fact, about a month ago, I got a call from one of the DE VPs, who expressed concern about my thoughts on you, Bill, and DE in general. She suggested you would have a desire to discuss it with me personally within a few days to set the record straight. In fact, she terminated the conversation because she felt it would be best if you and I spoke directly.

    I’m still waiting for that call, Bill.

  • http://www.directemployers.org Bill Warren

    Steve, you make my point very clearly!

    You say, “I think there is an ethical problem with you being chairman of the non-profit DE and the for-profit employMedia group.”

    The only way you could have ever thought this is by reading the nonsensical ranting and raving on ERE by Zappe, Manaster, and the “Coalition” about .Jobs over the past year.

    I have never been associated with Employ Media in any way. I have no financial interest in Employ Media. I have never been employed by Employ Media. I have absolutely nothing to do with their management.

    This is a very good example of the year-long campaign of misinformation and biased reporting about the .Jobs Universe that readers have received from ERE.

    We remained silent during the ICANN process out of respect for that process. We will not continue to let untruths and misinformation go unchallenged.

  • http://www.ere.net/ David Manaster

    @Bill — It’s clear from both of your comments that you are not happy with ERE’s coverage of .Jobs. Let me assure you that we report on .Jobs the same way that we do on everything else — we collect as much information as we can, and then call it as we see it. When new information is presented that changes our perspective, we report on that as well — as John did by updating this article with the new information that your team provided regarding the Quantcast numbers.

    You state that Steve thought that you were the Chairman of both DirectEmployers and Employ Media Group because he read it on ERE.net. You then go on to say how this is is “an example of the year long campaign of misinformation and biased reporting about the .Jobs Universe that readers have received from ERE.” The only problem is that Steve did not get that information from ERE.net. We never wrote it, because it is simply not true.

    Michael and Lance added to the discussion here by posting their thoughts based on numbers that anyone can look at and analyze independently. They came to different conclusions, but each introduced a new way of looking at things into the conversation.

    I hope that in the future you will respond constructively with data and reasoned arguments that prove your points rather then blanket statements and name-calling. Others may not agree with your points, but everybody in the industry will come away from THAT kind of conversation with better information.

  • http://www.directemployers.org Bill Warren

    We have always thought that responding constructively with data and reasoned arguments that prove your points rather then blanket statements and name-calling was the most reasonable approach.

    However, we have been on the receiving end of a lot of untruths and misinformation from ERE during the past year. Many of your own readers are also tired of “reading these skewed Articles, which are written to obscure the facts of the situation” as stated above.

    When a reader says, “Either the writer isn’t knowledgeable enough about job boards to research properly or is intentionally misleading readers” it’s time to take a look at yourself.

    As I said before, “We remained silent during the ICANN process out of respect for that process. We will not continue to let all of these untruths and misinformation go unchallenged.”

  • http://www.hireclix.com Neil Costa

    I am sorry to see all of this back and forth. Let’s be honest, I think ERE’s growth and popularity as a resource for the recruiting industry speaks for itself.

    There is a long road ahead for the .jobs network to be a viable option for employers in 2011 or even 2012 and here are five things to consider as you think about using a .jobs domain or the network.

    1) Most people who bought their .jobs domain use it as a redirect back to their career website. To me, that is a CYA – not a strategic recruitment marketing effort.

    2) Having a .jobs website domain does little if anything for your organization when candidates start their search on Google. There is no quick fix for search engine optimization and Google rules the roost. This isn’t unique to .jobs – .travel does little for travel websites.

    3) The .Jobs Network is powered by technology that is hard to use and has a dated feel. Pop open the search box and map and you will see some bizarre overlay. To captivate active and passive job seekers, you will need to hire a really good user experience designer.

    4) USA.jobs is self reportedly still in beta (see the top of their page). Recruitment marketing channels like Indeed, Simply Hired, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and LinkedIn are live, exploding with innovative practices and ideas.

    5) Better Mouse Trap? – The job board marketplace is mature. There are some great providers of job boards such as Boxwood and many others. The .Jobs network doesn’t represent true innovation.

    We find that our clients and prospective clients are really trying to figure out how to use new recruitment marketing channels. The job seekers drive this need to leverage the new channels. Employers need to figure out how to leverage those new channels to connect with the best candidates. We keep an open mind and will continue to watch how .jobs develops for our clients.

    See you all at ERE in San Diego.

    Cheers
    Neil

  • Steve Crumley

    Okay, Bill, I hear you. You lost me as a customer. Wasn’t that valuable enough to actually call me, as several of your reps have promised? And, further, I’ve requested reports from my account rep twice in the last month, with no reply.

    Shout all you want… I’m still not feeling much better.

  • Steve Crumley

    Further, Bill… I asked your people on several occasions about the supposed conflict of interest with EmployMedia. If you never worked there, why wouldn’t they say that?

  • http://www.jobboarddoctor.com Jeff DickeyChasins

    Great points, Neil. I think you’ve really nailed the core issues from the employer/recruiter point of view. If EM/DE doesn’t hear it, so be it.

  • Pingback: Is .jobs For Real? Why Should You Care?

  • Pingback: March 2011 news roundup | Online Recruiting News

  • Pingback: ปวดเอว