Peer review for resumes and job postings

jmac

Sep 19, 2013 04:36

It does have me thinking though, that a natural extension to a site about careers and the job hunting process would be an actual companion site for searching for jobs in any industry. Come to the Q&A for the career tips and knowledge, then go to the career site to land a new job. — jmort253 3 mins ago

@jmort253 I think the issue is that SO Careers is a natural extension of SO in the sense that employers get to see relevant information on candidates via their SO profile

jmort253

@jmac Not so much with Workplace.

jmac

@jmort253 Additionally, the applicants who see the ads will (generally) be people who are interested in programming as noted by their participation on the site

jmort253

It would be a different concept altogether really.

jmac

@jmort253 Exactly -- it would become an ABC guide to getting a job, which seriously dilutes the value of a job posting there.

jmort253

In this case, the ads would have to target a completely different audience altogether.

But, employers pay good money to post ads on SO Careers, so the ad revenue seems dwarfed by the revenue generated by job postings.

jmac

Sep 19, 2013 04:38

@jmort253 Now if, on the other hand, TW focused on management skills (for instance) and TW Careers focused on hiring managers, that I could see, but that isn't likely going to happen

jmort253

@jmac Having a focus is definitely advantgeous.

jmac

@jmort253 Yeah, because the quality of candidates is high -- joel had a blog post on it as well. Because of the demographic of the audience, a job posting on SO (or in the blog post's case Joel's blog) will have a much higher effectiveness because of the quality of the readers.

jmort253

With SO Careers, you know where you stand.... you're either hiring a programmer or a programmer looking for a job.

jmac

@jmort253 The issue with Monster.com or whatnot is that there are no filters to limit the quality of applicants, and in reality because of its business model it has to appeal to the lowest common denominator to maximize eyes on the site (and therefore revenues)

@jmort253 Bingo.

jmort253

Still, imagine a collaboratively edited careers site where a community peer reviewed and edited job postings, to help employers attract good candidates.

and where cover letters and resume's submitted could also go through a peer review process.

jmac

Sep 19, 2013 04:40

That would be awesome

what would be even more awesome is if the employers were to post sample situations to see how candidates would respond to them

jmort253

Could that help weed out bad candidates or also get folks jobs who just don't understand the process?

jmac

based on actual issues their company has faced, or questions that they think will have value in judging the character of people who woul dfit their team

jmort253

Yeh, you can definitely see who has the best judgement by reading the content here.

It's definitely not SO Careers, but something altogether different....

jmac

@jmort253 I think that the biggest hurdle a site like that would face is that the quality of the editors (contributors, whatever) would likely be dwarfed by the number of people saying, "Update my resume plz"

And if the quality of contributors drops, the value of job postings there would plummet as well.

jmort253

@jmac YEh, keeping those folks out would be difficult.

So that sort of makes that whole collaboratively edited career site a bit of a monster.

jmac

Sep 19, 2013 04:43

If we go back to the comment you have made a lot of the time, that this should be more seen as a site for HR professionals, I think it could work.

jmort253

But suppose there was a way Workplace SE could provide value by making a job search site different, something that doesn't exist in other job sites.

Maybe ratings for employers too? .... except that could be bad for business.

jmac

Fully agreed, not trying to shoot down the idea at all, I think it just has a lot of potential deal-stopping kinks that would have to be worked out prior to iteration #1

jmort253

"I paid $1,000 to post an ad on Workplace Careers and those bastards downvoted my ad"

3

jmac

I think the primary features would have to be: #1, resume checking would be tied to community contribution (people who provide value get checks more frequently)

jmort253

@jmac How do you work around the kinks? So let's assume community editing is just a bad idea.

@jmac That's a good idea....

jmac

Sep 19, 2013 04:45

#2, jobs would be applied to based on the resume posted on there -- employers would be able to ANONYMOUSLY provide feedback on what they do/don't like -- that would have to be incentivized too

jmort253

or maybe the bounty system could be tied to it.

Like 100 reputation to get a resume reviewed.

but the review has to be public so other future readers can benefit.

sans all private info of course...

jmac

I would rather have it be a queue-type system for resume reviews, and have those with more weight thrown to the top

though yeah, it should be public

that is an excellent point.

jmort253

that's probably easier to develop actually, to just use rep as weight.

like flag weight.

jmac

Easier to develop doesn't mean it will be successful, unfortunately.

jmort253

it's just a calculated ratio used to rant something.

jmac

Sep 19, 2013 04:46

I know I just broke some poor developer's heart with that statement.

jmort253

no but it does mean if it is successful it's easier to maintain.

Nah, I'm a developer and the most important thing I earned is to keep it simple.

jmac

but yeah, general concept is provide incentive in the form of quicker reviews to active participants

give employers the ability to provide anonymous feedback

(and incentivize that)

jmort253

so how do you encourage people to do good reviews?

jmac

You would have to implement review reviews!

(that is half-joking)

jmort253

lol

and resume review audits.

jmac

Sep 19, 2013 04:48

Yes!

But I think the goal isn't to have the community do the final check, but to have the employers do it

jmort253

Yeh, for sure... we're not doing the hiring, just helping people get themselves to the point where they're presentable.

and not doing something stupid just because they're a little naive.

jmac

Exactly -- fix typos, gross errors, that sort of stuff, and then maybe have an A-B testing feature for versions

So see whether "Led Spacely Sprockets in Number of Times Fired" appeals more than "Led Cogswell Cogs in Number of Times Hired" or the like

jmort253

so... the next obvious question is, does LinkedIn already do some of this stuff?

I get a lot of endorsements from people....

jmac

Sort of, but the platform isn't designed like that, and the careers on LinkedIn are all off to the side, sort of tacked on to a social media platform

The endorsements are meaningless though -- I have never heard of an employer that actually cared about those, because they are so easily gamed.

jmort253

@jmac Yeh, seems like a gimmick

Which most employers would see through.

jmac

Sep 19, 2013 04:52

I almost think TW Careers would be better-off acting as the middle-man figuring out how best to connect employers with employees. Using stuff like A-B testing for both resumes and job openings, as well as anonymous feedback both ways

jmort253

So for resume AB testing, like when an employer searches for candidates, and Bob Smith comes up, there's a 50/50 chance that Bob resume A might show for 1 employer and Bob resume B for another?

jmac

So on the user side, people post resumes to have gross errors fixed, create alternative ways to say similar things. Resumes that seem to fit can be auto-matched with job offers and the employers can provide anonymous feedback on the resumes, with the others doing the same on the job offers

jmort253

Thing is, how often do people change careers? How do you get results from that?

jmac

@jmort253 Sort of, yes. That is pretty basic A-B testing. It would be a bit more complex than that in reality (different phrasings for different portions, so you get a mix and match of various phrases to get richer feedback)

jmort253

@jmac A better play on that would be a community "Hire or no hire" series of buttons.

Take jcmeloni, for instance, she's done a lot of hiring.

jmac

Sep 19, 2013 04:54

@jmort253 Sorry, I probably skipped a step. I was thinking of using TW Careers to reinvent the job searching process. Rather than giving employees another way to look for job postings, or employers another place to post their job, randomly match suitable candidates and openings together and have the goal be feedback on both sides (anonymously)

jmort253

and we have some avid users here who work in HR.

jmac

So you post a job for C++, lead developer, senior developer, whatever

jmort253

Thing is, folks looking to hire people treat the process as a manufacturing operation.

just going through resume after resume with the laser-focused goal of finding a candidate.

I don't see too many employers providing feedback.

jmac

People with skills that match those are auto-selected from our variety of job postings, and given to the employer. The users are auto-shown the job posting. They can all decide whether it seems like a good fit from their end

jmort253

we even get a lot of questions from job searchers upset that they weren't told why they weren't hired.

jmac

Sep 19, 2013 04:56

this would help refine what candidates the person is looking for (and give a better idea of how to find those candidates) which if valuable, and also let them know what those candidates they like think about their job posting

Yeah, because the job search process is generally broken -- employers get bad candidates applying and don't want to bother saying no

It has no benefit to them.

jmort253

Thing is, the people on both sides are just faceless pieces of paper. I can't tell you whether I'd be a good fit for employer X without actually interviewing and seeing the office and the people.

In fact, when I read a job posting, my stomach gets in knots :)

jmac

If employers instead are given a quick glance of who we think are good matches, and they can click through 'yes/no' for each, then TW would know which candidates look good on paper, and how to care more about what they think.

@jmort253 Yeah, that's exactly the issue!

Let's say an employer is looking for someone like you on paper.

jmort253

So you're thinking basic feedbacl

jmac

And they read your resume.

jmort253

Yes/No

thumbs up or down.

jmac

Sep 19, 2013 04:58

They probably have a billion questions!

Two-stages.

#1: Yes/no on whether this is of any interest to me

no -> no feedback, pointless, not worth discussing

jmort253

if that's the only way to hit the next button then that could work.

jmac

(feedback would be nice, but probably unlikely)

jmort253

at least from employers... they're paying for the site.

jmac

#2: For those who they answer yes to, the feedback process starts.

jmort253

at least I assume they'd be

jmac

Sep 19, 2013 04:59

Worry about the business model later

the value needs to come first

(and then you can figure out how much and to whom)

So an employer thinks Alice, Bob, and Charlie are good.

Alice Bob and Charlie are asked to give feedback on the job posting as it is. If they think it is bad, they can say why people like them wouldn't be interested. Be it salary, ambiguous language, just being "words on paper"

at the same time, for all the people who said they liked the job posting, the employer could give feedback on why they aren't the right type of fit for the company, etc.

jmort253

What would be the value to the employer?

If I'm looking to hire someone, how does this help me?

jmac

The employer wants Alice, Bob, and Charlie.

But Alice, Bob, and Charlie may not like the job posting.

If the employer can't get Alice, Bob, and Charlie, figuring out how to appeal to candidates like Alice, Bob, and Charlie would be of great value to them

jmort253

So the employer gets feedback too so that they can tweak the ad

jmac

Exactly!

jmort253

know who looked at them and why those people didn't apply.

jmac

Sep 19, 2013 05:03

Nobody would apply in my system (at least not as a default)

you would just give hypothetical interest or no

visceral reaction type stuff. And when those don't match up, feedback to refine the message and get better reactions, which follows with more testing. If during that process there is a good fit, then a candidate can apply.

jmort253

I haven't looked for a job in years, so I wonder if this is how most of the sites work? Actually I did look at some postings in SO Careers when we were looking for an Asterisk engineer, but I didn't see anything like what we're talking about.

jmac

There is nothing I have ever seen like I'm discussing

jmort253

so a canddiate can't even apply for a posting until that candidate has been vetted

and vice versa, the employers' posting doesn't go live until it's been reviewed.

so it's like both parties don't meet up until both are in top shape.

jmac

Yes, that all can be tweaked, but rather than the goal being hiring, you make the goal general feedback

and you incentivize feedback to create a community giving feedback -- more eyes means more refinement means better candidates/jobs

jmort253

That might be something people would get behind.

jmac

Sep 19, 2013 05:06

And the beauty is that if it is designed right, it has value to both parties, and becomes not a one-sided process but a truly productive process to get a good team together

adding in the Q&As for potential employees would be awesome as well, providing real context and further refinement of the information on candidates (and getting a real resource of what real employers want to know about their employees)

jmort253

@jmac Is this something you think Workplace SE could do with existing tools? I picture a separate, auxiliary site.

jmac

@jmort253 Existing tools wouldn't work as-designed. They could be slightly modified to work.

If each resume was a questions, and each job opening was a question, then the 'related posts' dropdowns could be used.

Industries or skills could be defined as tags for those 'types' of questions

that would allow candidates and jobs to be automagically set for each other

the review queue system could be used to throw the posts of job offers/resumes in the respective matched employer/employee's queues to give a 'yes/no' to

a follow-up queue could be created when one side is saying 'yes, this is good' and the other saying 'no' which would mimic the edit queue, or allow them to provide feedback as an answer to that post with further feedback

in the case of yes-yes, the employee would be given a choice to submit their resume immediately to that company with private details removed (to allow them to actually apply for the job)

jmort253

@jmac Well, these are great ideas. I've starred the beginning of this thread.

jmac

Sep 19, 2013 05:22

I'm sure Rhys will give his feedback -- he seems to read everything in here

At any rate, it would be a great future concept depending on how SO careers pans out, and once we pass through Beta and reach critical mass of users

(we still have a lot too many 'Why does everyone around me suck?' questions to appeal to many employers who wouldn't want applications from people like that is my guess)

In the meantime, I think the best may just be networking amongst the regulars and others who want to participate -- if it did manage to get someone a good lead, it would definitely end up as a positive step forward at any rate (and a proof of value of the community!)

jmort253

0

Q: Peer review for resume's and job postings

One of the ways Workplace SE could provide more value is by creating a platform to help employers and job candidates create high quality job postings and job applications, which will help candidates attract the best employers and employers attract the best candidates. The process: We attach an ...

@jmac - I posted a summary here just so this is documented. I don't expect this to go anywhere, but conversations like this are awesome ways to think about how we can provide more value!

The Water Cooler

Participants