|
HiroProtagonist posted:
Then, if you believe that is true, Linked-In is absolutely destroying the only value it had whatsoever. If you think "500+ connections" is the future for everyone then just kill the whole site now because it is nothing more than a searchable resume database. If all connections are meaningless then there is no point in connecting in the first place, right? Just put your resume on Indeed and be done with it.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
moflika posted:Since I'm focusing on a niche that is full of small, young companies, I figured that they would look for talent themselves amongst people they are connected to. Not with recruiters. But you are not "connected", are you? They just accepted a meaningless invitation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
I will say that upping my number of connections (mostly people I don't know) has vastly increased the number of cold calls and emails I get from recruiters. And not recruiters I connected to, either. None of them have lead to a job yet, but at this point for me, I just need to play the field as much as possible, as I've struck out at every company where my friends and former co-workers ended up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
moflika posted:Since I'm focusing on a niche that is full of small, young companies, I figured that they would look for talent themselves amongst people they are connected to. Not with recruiters. They are very much likely to look for talent among people they are connected to. But someone they've never met but sent them an invitation to "connect" on LinkedIn is not someone they are connected to, whether they accepted the invitation or not. People they are connected to that they'd reach out to are friends, colleagues, and former coworkers. Or people that those people recommend to them. LinkedIn would make it easier for them to do that. That's what they'd use LinkedIn for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Tai-Pan posted:Then, if you believe that is true, Linked-In is absolutely destroying the only value it had whatsoever. Did you pause to consider what it was besides this? Most current resume databases suck and make networking directly with recruiters impossible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
HiroProtagonist posted:More changes rolled out to the site recently that have now even further increased the number of places Linkedin puts pressure on you directly to increase the size of your network. They are flat out telling you themselves that every new connection helps you at minimum to increase your visibility to others. Dude, someone just posted that following your advice got them locked down as a spammer. That probably means that LinkedIn does not agree with you on that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
I feel like they are more or less fine with people connecting with people that don't really know eachother, but have to give people the option to "report" people. poo poo, I had my account up for 1 day and some dude asked for a connect. Never met him, but his background seemed similar to a friend on mine. I could've been some sensitive rear end dork and reported the dude. After a couple more "I don't know this person" hits, his account would probably have been frozen like mine. Basically, if Linkedin didn't have that option, then spam would run wild to the point of destroying the site. Most people seem to get that these connections are meant to give you more reach/exposure. If they wanted something more personal, then they could hit up Facebook etc. Since I just started my profile, I was added people (most people I knew) like mad. Problem is, they were from US, Germany, Norway, China, HK, Japan, UK, Italy... you get the idea. My poo poo just seemed sketch as hell, even though I do really know all these people. Customer Service asked me for a copy of my ID to verify I am who I say I am. I feel like I went a bit too far too fast, that's all. We'll see how they act if and when my account gets re-opened. I'm definitely not going to use this if I always have to worry about it getting locked down. Linkedin knows whats up with all the drat "recruiters" rolling around. They just have to appear to care by responding to "I don't knows". IMHO etc etc. edit: spelling moflika fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Dude, someone just posted that following your advice got them locked down as a spammer. That probably means that LinkedIn does not agree with you on that. Actually, at most, it means the people who received the connection requests didn't appreciate receiving them. Or, it could have been a result of some over-zealous anti-spambot fuzzy logic algorithm working entirely in the background, and in reality, not a single person he sent those requests to even came near the report button. Fact is, there's no way to know without receiving additional information and feedback on the reason why. There is also the fact that this is the first report I've ever heard of someone specifically being limited in any way in regards to sending connection requests, rather than because of a recipient's individual privacy and visibility settings--let alone just within this thread. Also keep in mind that a large portion of the site's active users are doing exactly the opposite of that and yet aren't being obstructed in any way. And as I've just pointed out, the site is pushing you to actively send out connection requests and there is a near-zero chance that Linkedin's administrators are completely unaware that a significant portion of their site is making use of that feature as a primary method of reaching a wider audience for the purpose of self-promotion. Tai-Pan posted:But you are not "connected", are you? You're not wrong. Every single connection you make on the site is 'meaningless' by a reasonable definition from the moment it's accepted. I want to make this next statement exceptionally clear, so please excuse the formatting. Linkedin, even at it's best, is not a substitute for finessing social interactions or putting in effort towards your own self-promotion. It is up to you, and only you, to make use of the tools and opportunity the site gives you to do that. That is what makes Linkedin the best tool, better by far than any resume-searching site, for finding employment; it is precisely that explicit space allowed for personal interactions with strangers, colleagues and peers alike, that is a foundation of the site's design making it why that is so. If you choose not to take advantage of that capacity, to whatever degree you also choose, then that is a choice you are making for yourself that everyone gets the opportunity to make as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Dude, someone just posted that following your advice got them locked down as a spammer. That probably means that LinkedIn does not agree with you on that. This is definitely wrong. I added a bunch of connections (200+) over the weekend just based on people who went to the same school as me (in the alumni LI group) and are in the same general field. Not people I know, even. I got no warnings or restrictions, just an expanded network. Something else was at play in moflika's case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
It's long been talked about that LinkedIn has some algorithm/protections against connection spam. For obvious reasons, LinkedIn does not articulate what these protections are or really even confirm they exist. What is definitely true is that the site now encourages you to be a LION and uses fewer networking restrictions as a selling point for account upgrades. Open networking still doesn't mean "drop a connection request to everyone ever without thought," though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
turtlecrunch posted:Something else was at play in moflika's case. Good to know!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
I wonder if it's a case of who people are sending connection requests to. Requesting connections to middle managers and such at other companies with 100 connections is not the same as requesting connections to recruiters and/or people active in groups/posts/whatever. Use common sense. There are people on both sides of the aisle and if you're in the connect-with-everyone-camp then don't try to connect with people who obviously are not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Don't connect with recruiters associated with Robert Half (sometimes "rht") I've been contacted by at least two and had a skype interview at different times. Both reps were 1) Working in a boiler room style call-center 2) Gave off a REALLY shady vibe. Both were smarmy and tried to push for my current salary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
megazord posted:Don't connect with recruiters associated with Robert Half (sometimes "rht") This describes the last dozen recruiters I've spoken with. "I'll get right back to you" is right up there with "The check's in the mail." Semi-related: Don't ever pay for a recruiter. I had one who was shilling a "donation" for the "resume classes he teaches in his spare time," and all donors would get priority treatment on his appointment list. Shady as hell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
HiroProtagonist posted:
What reasonable definition? That is a silly statement. If I connect with someone that I know and have worked with for years, I am letting the world know I am a reliable source of information on that person. If a CEO wants to know if they are a good candidate or if a friend wants me to connect them for a Biz-Dev opportunity I can be that source or connector. This is not meaningless. Meaningless is a connection with a recent grad from Kent State that I have never met but "wants to work in tech". HiroProtagonist posted:
What you wrote their makes no sense whatsoever. If every connection you have is someone with whom you have no relationship, what "tools" or "opportunity" does Linked In provide? The entire concept of a "connection" is lost. Also, I haven't seen what the new releases that encourage the behavior you are describing are. Care to link? Either way, the system grew precisely because it did not do the things you are saying. If they really are changing that direction, and trying to become the Twitter of Business, then I can only call that a huge misstep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
After sending in a scan of my passport for verification: "Thanks for getting back to me. Unfortunately we could not validate the ID sent, therefore we are not allowing access back to this account. Regards, Beto LinkedIn Trust & Safety" Welp, that was fun while it lasted  Goodbye Linkedin!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
Tai-Pan posted:If they really are changing that direction, and trying to become the Twitter of Business, then I can only call that a huge misstep. I agree with that. The utility of LinkedIn is that it isn't just an online resume. It's more like an internet Roladex that stays updated as your contacts move through their careers. If everybody just treats it like Monster.com then it loses its worth. It is in LinkedIn's interest to limit LION (other than obvious exceptions like recruiters) if they want to keep their niche. Thoguh fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:I agree with that. The utility of LinkedIn is that it isn't just an online resume. It's more like an internet Roladex that stays updated as your contacts move through their careers. If everybody just treats it like Monster.com then it loses its worth. It is in LinkedIn's interest to limit LION (other than obvious exceptions like recruiters) if they want to keep their niche. I have a theory that successful and well-connected LIONs were successful and well-connected before they became LIONs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
moflika posted:After sending in a scan of my passport for verification: What a load. There has to be a way for them to unblock you. This is a pretty crappy thing to do to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
I don't think I would ever give a copy of my passport to a company that wholesale agrees that MITM exploitation of email is a good idea. I struggle to give them even the basic info they ask for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
Definitely not my favorite thing in the world to do, but I've had to many times already for schools overseas etc. Just block out everything except the most basic info. I basically opened up another ticket explaining everything I've done up to this point and how I would appreciate some sort of explanation other than basically nothing... especially after complying and asking the same person multiple times. No way am I going to send yet another ID at this point. I hope I get someone else, since I've heard of people actually getting someone responsive. My dude seemed to be a book full of copy/paste responses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
moflika posted:Welp, that was fun while it lasted Welp indeed.  I'm really sorry, that's a pretty awful thing to have happen to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
So I'm not really sure where else to ask this: Through job listings and contacts on LinkedIn, I had four phone interviews this month that I thought went REALLY well, in that they said they wanted to schedule a real interview. However, a couple days after each phone interview, I received a boilerplate rejection email instead. Is that normal, or is there something else at play? I've had a lot of trouble scoring a real interview in the past few months and I can't figure out why. I even did a background check on myself to make sure I wasn't being confused for someone else. Is this normal? ZnCu fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
A recruiter contacted me for a position. I've seen the position posted on the company website and it's something I could do, it's just that it's a senior level position and the requirements for it were an MS with 5 years of experience or a pHD with 3 years of experience. I'm a BS with 2 years of experience so I didn't bother applying. We're discussing the position tomorrow over the phone. Is this something recruiters commonly do - go after people even though they might not fit the requirements for the job? Do I realistically have a chance? I'm gonna go for it either way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
ZnCu posted:So I'm not really sure where else to ask this: It doesn't sound AB-normal necessarily, but unfortunately that lovely answer is also the best one I've got for you. It would depend on everything from the industry you're in, to your experience level (the closer to entry level the more disposable you are and the tougher all possible discriminators are applied), the source(s) that are recruiting you (internal or external, contract-to-hire or direct hire), and so on. I will say that I sympathize with your frustration a great deal; one of the worst things that job hunting involves is a great deal of ambiguity. Even with perfect positioning, it is still possible to have zero useful insight into why a decision was made, or even finding something to take-away from the experience in order to improve yourself for the next opportunity. The best thing you could do right now, in my opinion, is just to rebalance the load and keep trudging on. It's often a slog and occasionally a slog through just unreasonable levels of poo poo on top of that. Don't give up. Jerome Louis posted:A recruiter contacted me for a position. I've seen the position posted on the company website and it's something I could do, it's just that it's a senior level position and the requirements for it were an MS with 5 years of experience or a pHD with 3 years of experience. I'm a BS with 2 years of experience so I didn't bother applying. We're discussing the position tomorrow over the phone. Is this something recruiters commonly do - go after people even though they might not fit the requirements for the job? Do I realistically have a chance? I'm gonna go for it either way. It happens, yes, but as with all headhunting, view it with extreme suspicion until you are to the point that you're dealing with the hiring company as much as you are with the recruiter, at the very least. On the plus side though, essentially this is a potentially huge return on a bare minimum of effort on your end. I would view this as a no-brainer. At worst, you're no worse off than you are now; and I also personally consider it a benefit if I'm dealing with a recruiter or recruiting agency that I haven't previously worked with, as it means that I have my name and qualifications floating around even more people whose job it is to get me a job somewhere. HiroProtagonist fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Jerome Louis posted:A recruiter contacted me for a position. I've seen the position posted on the company website and it's something I could do, it's just that it's a senior level position and the requirements for it were an MS with 5 years of experience or a pHD with 3 years of experience. I'm a BS with 2 years of experience so I didn't bother applying. We're discussing the position tomorrow over the phone. Is this something recruiters commonly do - go after people even though they might not fit the requirements for the job? Do I realistically have a chance? I'm gonna go for it either way. I wouldn't get into a "I might get this job" attitude about a position that a third-party recruiter (if this is indeed third party) lined me up for until I actually have an in-person interview for it. I would still apply for it, but it's not really anything until the company in question acts on it. Recruiters vary wildly in quality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I wouldn't get into a "I might get this job" attitude about a position that a third-party recruiter (if this is indeed third party) lined me up for until I actually have an in-person interview for it. I would still apply for it, but it's not really anything until the company in question acts on it. This is actually an internal recruiter, either way I'm not getting my hopes up too much
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Jerome Louis posted:This is actually an internal recruiter, either way I'm not getting my hopes up too much If it's an internal recruiter just follow up on it and apply, out here in Seattle people would die to have internal recruiters call them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Internal recruiter is much more promising. Usually you hear about applying to jobs you don't meet the qualifications for since they tend to be more like wishlists than requirements, but it's always ambiguous on whether that's the case on any particular listing. They may ultimately go with someone that meets the requirements, but it at least means you're not disqualified immediately. External recruiters I don't usually expect much on if I don't make the requirements. I think they want a list of people they can sort through and pick to put forward from there. The one time I had a significant response with one (talked with someone at the hiring company) the recruiter talked through the list of job requirements with me ahead of time to make sure I met all of them and had something to talk about for each.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Jerome Louis posted:This is actually an internal recruiter, either way I'm not getting my hopes up too much You have the right attitude, but I would definitely give it 100% effort. "Requirements" can be pretty flexible. Sometimes people will post wild things then realize the candidate they are looking for is too expensive/unicorn/the requirements were not necessary/etc
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Omne posted:Question on location: let's say I want to move from the area I'm currently living in (and employed), and have narrowed it down to a few locations. 1) Should I change my location to reflect where I want to go, not where I am? 2) How would you choose which location to put there? Reposting as this got lost at the end of the last page
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
I'd still say don't get your hopes up. Internal recruiters tend to compile an initial list of candidates for submission to who would actually be the direct supervisor for the position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Omne posted:Reposting as this got lost at the end of the last page Realistically, you're not going to see much interest with an out of state location to the job posting. Use a family members address if possible. It's very complicated to do what you're trying though.. Almost like a sitcom plot. You'll have to be able to travel for interviews on short notice and move on your own with no relocation. The alternative is hoping a company will be willing to fly you out for interviews and pay relocation costs. It requires a very particular skillet requirement for the job for them to be willing to do that, in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I'd still say don't get your hopes up. Internal recruiters tend to compile an initial list of candidates for submission to who would actually be the direct supervisor for the position. Well the guy never ended up calling when he said he would, pretty lame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
A few months ago I was in weekly contact with an account manager and project manager/recruiter at a recruitment firm. They would send me emails with potential jobs to see if I was interested. It has been a few months since they have contacted me but I recently paid to have my resume revised and updated. Along with making it more focused and removing irrelevant experiences. I'm wondering how I should contact them. Should I sent each of them a separate email with my resume attached? Or sent it to both at the same time? I obviously do not know what their relationship or collaboration is at their firm but there would be times when all three of us would be involved in the same email thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Omne posted:Reposting as this got lost at the end of the last page Change it to your target job market. The "jobs recommended for you" field is populated in part by location. Just make sure you are open about where you are located in your CV and especially if a company gets in contact with you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
EgonSpengler posted:Change it to your target job market. The "jobs recommended for you" field is populated in part by location. Just make sure you are open about where you are located in your CV and especially if a company gets in contact with you. Agreed. You can say "I am in the process of moving to X". Just be warned, any company that was filtering on location means they will not budget any moving stipend and will expect you to be available for in-person interviews at your expense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Jerome Louis posted:Well the guy never ended up calling when he said he would, pretty lame. I ended up speaking with him today and it's no longer for a senior level position as they're promoting internally for the role, but they do need someone with my skill set for a role. Looks like a pretty good opportunity. LinkedIn is good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
My experience with recruiters is that they don't even really read the requirements. If they see two or three keyword matches, that's enough. I've had recruiters submit me for all sorts of things I wasn't qualified for, and I presume it's because they just take a shotgun approach to everything. At this point, it's just a numbers game.HiroProtagonist posted:It doesn't sound AB-normal necessarily, but unfortunately that lovely answer is also the best one I've got for you. It would depend on everything from the industry you're in, to your experience level (the closer to entry level the more disposable you are and the tougher all possible discriminators are applied), the source(s) that are recruiting you (internal or external, contract-to-hire or direct hire), and so on. Thanks, that's oddly encouraging. I've got almost 10 years experience in my field, but I haven't even gotten a single interview in months. I don't know if it's bad luck or something more problematic, but I've already spent way too much on resume writers and background checks and I feel like I've run out of things to try.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
Yeah I had a recruiter contact me for a position that was like, extremely out of my league, like I didn't even understand half of what the job requirements were asking. And it was on the other side of the country. Doesn't cost anything to send out an email that wasn't personalized past my name aside from a couple seconds, so why bother putting more thought in right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 14:31
|
|