The ineffectiveness of job sites

petdance on 2003-06-17T16:34:23

Nick Corcodilos' newsletter this week is a lengthy one about the dismal effectiveness of job sites.

Employers were asked what percentage of their new hires came from the four leading online career sites. The percentage of hires made through Monster: a whopping 1.4%. Hotjobs: .39%. CareerBuilder: .29%. Headhunter.net: .27%. (Yes, those decimal points are in the right places.)

I've discussed Nick before, and I'll say it again: Get his weekly newsletter, even if you're not looking for a job.

---

Not all bad

autarch on 2003-06-17T18:04:12

Feedback Ask and I have gotten from posters on jobs.perl.org suggests that the success rate for employers there is much higher.

Re:Not all bad

petdance on 2003-06-17T18:27:28

Agreed. Last two positions I've filled came from http://jobs.perl.org. The one before that was from the local paper (suburban, not the Chicago Tribune)

jobs.perl.org GOOD!

ajt on 2003-06-17T19:45:53

I think that jobs.perl.org is focused on a single small topic, and is able to maintain a high S/N ratio. I also think the Perl community is more cohesive than others, and this also adds to it's effectiveness.

I would have to agree that the ultra-general sites, are full of phantom jobs, and agents, and I don't think that they are very effective at all.

Job boards

TheHeadhunter on 2003-06-18T15:10:24

I think the only successful "job boards" will be those in niche communities, like this one. The big boards are too big. More important, they're not communities. Most jobs (up to 70%) are found and filled through personal contacts. That's what a community is about. It's a place where "due diligence" is a natural part of belonging. No one "belongs" to Monster. On the other hand, if you read the terms and conditions on Monster, you will find that your resume "belongs" to Monster. Another story entirely: http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/gv011023.htm

Cheers, Nick Corcodilos asktheheadhunter.com