The new recruiting.com

I have been debating in my head do or don’t I post about the new recruiting.com. If I post will I just add to the hype and if I don’t will I regret not getting my thoughts out. I also am a bit bitter about the whole thing as I had grand plans to do exactly the same thing, not just for the recruiters out there but for all HR professionals who blog. But I do not have the dollars in the bank to fund such an activity, and I am just a hack when it comes to code, so I stopped.

Anyway back to the new recruiting.com. There has also been good and bad comments made about the change even comments that we don’t need a site like this, these have come from outside the HR industry so they really don’t stand up. You just have to look at the quality of the content on careers.netscape.com to see that for the industry we do need something.

My personal thoughts are listed below. However let me preface them with the revamp looks like it has been completed by the very rich Jobster not Jason Davis the individual. Although Jason & Jason claim to only have a single part time dev working on the case, if this is true they are probably reusing existing Jobster infrastructure and they should be congratulated. However why only a part time dev, is Jobster not fully committed here? Anyway now for the list.

  • It is a good start
  • Make content more transparent what is Recruiting.com content and what comes from other bloggers. It is a difficult site to navigate, some really important parts are not easy to find, eg http://www.recruiting.com/tools-for-bloggers
  • The old recruiting.com bloggers now seem to be the “Editors” but what do they edit? Are they now like the Netscape anchors or navigators? Will they step in an provide more details on certain events, highlight interesting submissions or was that the only name that fit?
  • The colours are nice, very now’ish, ok Web 2.0 but I hate the term.
  • The AJAX implementation ok, not as good as I would of liked. For example search, you get a completed page redraw when you switch between searching for content and users. The sign in is a page reload.
  • Voting can be done without registering, WTF! This means people can vote multiple times.  (Update : Just to clarify, you could only vote twice, once with no account and then again once you have an account.)
  • How can the old articles from Recruiting.com have so many votes? Did Jobster seed the site to make it look like that there is more activity than there really is?
  • There does not seem to be a check for duplicate articles on submission
  • Where are the tags?
  • What is the algorithm to determine what is on the front page? The most votes, comments, date, what there seems to be no logic.
  • If Recruiting.com is going down the whole social news path, let me see who is voting on the stories, who is voting like me, who is linking to different stories. Let’s be social!
  • Why can’t I get an RSS feed of the top stories, separate to the Editor’s stories separate to the stories by Category?
  • Personally I like the idea of the recent comments but I feel it needs to be enhanced. How, indicate the story that the comment is from, highlight if it is an Editor’s story.
  • Divide the blogroll up by category!
  • In know some of the items are a bit picky but I do agree with Jason D’s recent comments:-

    The vision of Recruiting.com is to make it a place so people can visit it and see what information is available in the industry and more importantly a place where the community judges what is good and worth promoting to others.

    I just wished it was for the whole HR industry not just recruiting.

    11 thoughts on “The new recruiting.com

    1. Great suggestions – we are working on a number of things and some of the points you raised have already been raised by us and are being addressed.

      I can answer one of your questions “the editors” are in fact the bloggers from the original recruiting.com site.

      We do not edit other people’s content – the title editor might be a bit of a misnomer and we may change that soon.

    2. Thanks for listening guys. I really think the name editors is wrong. What would be good is something like “Guides”, or “House Bloggers” to indicate what they are really doing.

      Jason, nto sure of your funding or your business structure but it would also make sense to use your “editors” to really highlight good posts, I know Jim has been doing this, but more as real Editor Picks and maybe even complete a further indepth review of the topic. I am all for Jason Calacanis’s approach of paying people for this type of work. Just my thoughts.

    3. Hey Michael,

      I hope all is well with you. A number of the suggestions you make in this post have nade to Recruiting.com . You probably know this but I wanted to let you know.

    4. Thanks for letting me know. Yes I have seen most of them and planned to post about them but been a bit caught up with my real job!

      Certainly shows you guys are listening and planning to build a top class product.

    Comments are closed.