Google Jobs Search
blog.google
blog.google
The good supplier doesn't want to spend their energy in reviewing vast quantity of available consumers. At the same time good consumers don't want to go after every available suppliers. There is also good likelyhood that bad suppliers as well as bad consumers are trying to masquerade as good ones. This is the same setting as dating website or Amazon product website. The solution that humans seem to prefer is somehow build the trust model. In case of Amazon product website, you look at reviews and ratings by others. In case of dating website you look at characteristics that you have learned to trust such as what's in the photos, what person is doing for living, what degrees do they have and so on. In case of jobs, companies look at who is referring to who or if you are already at other top company (which is the reason why most people get jobs because of referrals, not by posting resumes). The trust model is developed individually and can massively be different from person to person.
I'm in fact more certain that virtually all companies ignore resumes posted on their website and most interviews happen solely because recruiter actively identified candidate from other similar company/university or referrals. However this may be more true in skilled jobs.
As much as I hate Google, someone has to come along and become the authority to put these all in one place and hopefully drive all these terrible sites/recruiters out of business.
Employers need a way to search through the many applicants for people worth interviewing. Today they use heuristics (like referrals) to make filtering easier. There might be better ways to do filtering.
As an employee, it isn't easy for me to list all job openings within 15 minutes of my home today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_theory
If you consider that both parties (job hunters and employers) must locate each other and agree on each other then you enter the realm of matching theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_theory_(economics)
There's a great book on this called "Who Gets What—and Why". The book talks about lots of matching markets: job hunting, school selection, kidney exchange, etc. It talks about the reasons why these markets work and how we might improve them.
http://www.hmhbooks.com/whogetswhat/
Note that trust is an important component of a functioning market.
The key word here is relationship. As in relationship management.
What, where are CRM equivalents for recruiting, interviewing, onboarding, etc? Does everyone roll their own? Or just done manually, ad hoc?
Is this a service that indeed.com or competitors could provide to their customers (both sides)?
---
My team has been actively interviewing. My current employer's HR/recruiting is better than most places I've seen. Even so, it's still opaque. After we do our bit, we have no idea what happens to our candidates.
Without any feedback, the whole exercise feels pointless. For both sides.
God spare me for saying this, because I hate JIRA with the passion of billion imploding stars, but we need some kind of candidate tracking system, perhaps modeled after issue trackers, coupled with some basic CRM features (call log, tickle reminders, etc).
Any business that depends on putting their own search results inside of Google's is going to be a target of "forward integration."
And I am not a fan of the EU's approach to regulation, economically they are already failing and I predict that it only gets worse.
Free markets win every time.
How are the markets (spheres of influence) of USA, EU, and China different?
What makes one of these markets more free than the others?
Without really no knowledge of the Google ruling in my opinion it seems that it's a flick to show Google that there is a line that it can't cross. Maybe Google in all of its superiority has become too arrogant, who knows.
And free markets work only if they are fairly regulated. If there was no penalty from abusing your monopoly you think companies wouldn't do it? I think even Google wouldn't be all the goody-goody with its business practices if we'd let its actions go unchecked. Granted Google seems better than most.
Unless they result in a monopoly, which has arguably happened in the case of Google. Users only want to use one place to search, Google is currently dominant and the problem seems solved well enough that no newcomers are likely to succeed in the future.
Now Google is using its monopoly on search to move into a new segment (shopping) with an unfair advantage.
> to the US absolutely destroying EU
> companies, the few that exist
And I, as a consumer, hope that the opposite happens. The lack of regulation in the US may be great for corporations but it's definitely not for consumers. When it comes to things like privacy, most of the features I get from US companies seem to be a result of EU regulations.
Note: I live and work in the US for a major US company. I just prefer to have consumer rights than a minor bump to my stock portfolio value.
Google behaved anticompetitively, Amazon responded in turn, but unfortunately, very few people are aware of the former.
(And yes, Google's anticompetitive behavior regarding Android apps and services is subject to another, separate EU antitrust investigation than the one mentioned above, which is still ongoing.)
Imho, it's perfectly reasonable for Google to include Play Services as a requirement to OEMs running managed Android (as opposed to custom compiled flavors based on AOSP). Don't you agree?
Google's agreement for this is in fact, illegal anticompetitive tying (or bundling, if you prefer). Requiring that in order to support Chromecast, Amazon must include Google Play Books is a very questionable requirement legally, especially considering the other highly dominant apps they require, like Google Search, Google Maps, and Google Chrome. In almost every civilized country, it's illegal for a company to use one monopoly to expand it's reach into another market. (Like to use these bundling requirements to encroach on the Kindle ebook market.)
If, as you suggest, however, it's perfectly reasonable to require all this of Amazon in exchange for Kindle support, isn't it perfectly reasonable for Amazon to decide not to sell hardware not compatible with their products?
Can you please cite where you got this information from?
"Over the last three years, Prime Video has become an important part of Prime," the statement says. "It's important that the streaming media players we sell interact well with Prime Video in order to avoid customer confusion."
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/01/technology/amazon-bans-apple...
Combined this with Google's relatively secret (but well known to you, oh avid reader of my comments here) Mobile Applications Distribution Agreement (or MADA) which places heavy requirements on what Android devices can be if they have Google Play Services, like forbidding so-called "incompatible forks".
I mean, bitmapbrother, it only makes sense that Amazon only sells products compatible with their own products. The Apple Store doesn't sell chargers for the Galaxy S8! That would be madness. If Google wants their products sold on Amazon, they should feel free to loosen up their license restrictions to permit compatibility.
Also, Amazon is free to use Google Services providing their devices pass the CTS. In fact, their rumored Ice phones will use GMS.
That combined means advertisers (read: companies trying to hire) could find a lot of value in using this over other options, and that could mean a large revenue opportunity for Google.
"At the same time, 46 percent of U.S. employers face talent shortages and have issues filling open positions with the right candidate."
"Talk of a skills gap in the labor market is 'an incredible cop out'":
http://www.businessinsider.com/no-skills-gap-in-labor-market...
Doubly so for technology:
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2...
https://medium.com/i-m-h-o/stem-still-no-shortage-c6f6eed505...
I think its very disingenuous to use the reputation of the article to also push for a " no skills shortage in technology" view. The original article is well researched and based on facts, whereas the blog posts you link are not.
General: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/opinion/krugman-jobs-and-...
http://www.epi.org/publication/shortage-skilled-workers/
Tech: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-myt...
More tech: http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-i...
Manufacturing: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160815134829.h...
I'm asking because I'm curious of how job hunting and networking goes for you without LinkedIn.
I've followed up with a few over the years and they've ultimately not been good fits for me at the time (stack, salary, or location), but I wouldn't say they were bad jobs. Also, for the others I usually just respond with a canned "I'm only looking for X, Y, Z right now, so feel free to reach out again if you find something along those lines!"
I think it's worth having a LinkedIn if you're looking or open to moving jobs, as it's a pretty common venue for recruiters to (easily) get in touch, IMO.
Whilst I do have a LinkedIn profile, I have yet to use LinkedIn as an avenue to search for a job in any meaningful sense. Perhaps this will change, but at the moment I'm far more likely to integrate Google's job search into my process than jacking up LinkedIn to max.
1. When I was doing Masters, in order to not forget every little academic project I did, I documented them on LinkedIn and put the code on github and linked it.
2. People would be against doing this, but when I was searching for internships, I kept adding any recruiter I came across to my network. Especially with recruiters from well-known companies (like MS, Google, Intel etc), I add them aggressively and was sure to do (3) below.
3. When adding someone to my network, instead of the default template message, I wrote something about myself, like "Hi I am currently doing my Masters in CS at <univ> university and I am looking for internship opportunities. Please take a look at my profile and let me know if you think I might be a match for something".
4. Always kept my profile updated as I took more courses, did side projects etc. This way, my network got updates about me, and they were able to see that I was getting more knowledge and experience. The recruiters and other professionals who were not able to find a match for me before now start to think may be they should give me a shot.
5. Network, network and network. I shared interesting tech articles I found online, liked others' posts about such articles etc. This might seem obvious, but don't "like" memes and funny statuses. I grew my network to the point that I had 400+ connections. But only about 200 of them were people I actually know and the rest were recruiters/professionals in the field/startup CEOs etc. The downside of this is that I now often get recruiting messages when I'm no longer in the job market. I save those messages hoping that I would find them useful one day.
TL;DR is that keep your profile updated and rich with content, and network as much as you can. Be professional, try to take time to respond to the recruiters who reach out to you. Even if you are not interested in their company, take a minute to just say so. It may help you in the future.
jobs seem to be a natural extension of google's search service, and a direct competitive response to indeed. these job search results will be useful to people but i don't see it changing the industry. discovery is an important step in getting a job but it's only one step.
(i say this as someone working on the matching problem between employers and employees.)
I wouldn't know on how to behave differently.
Disclaimer: I have no idea how Google Jobs Search is implemented.
One problem is I also spend a huge amount of time googling stuff I'm completely uninterested in and hate doing. What wires do you jumper again to test a mid 00s whirlpool freezer icemaker to verify its motor works, again? Once its fixed I never want to see that again, certainly don't want to work as an appliance repairman.
Possibly there is an algorithm to analyze behavior. Oh he's searching for freebsd something or other maybe he'd like a sysadmin job. Oh look he's hate-searching for icemaker repair again, better not suggest appliance repair jobs.
If everything in my personal life were known over the last 20 years, I'd probably be unemployable. Let's just start with politics. I was an activist in my early 20s. When I was young, I had some pretty radical ideas. Google knows that, there's plenty in my gmail about it. Should that really be used to inform my current job prospects, 20 years later?
Google knows every time I've taken a sick day and lied about it (I carry my android phone, and use google maps).
Etc.
There's no reason for any of your information to be shared with the prospective employers here, no? The flow of information here is from the employers, via Google, to you, not the other way around. Your information, plus what you type, would just filter that info down to what you actually care about.
With Google Jobs you're the product to be sold. Only this time it's not annoying ad's, they're offering your employment for sale, your life.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/23/12610890/google-search-pu...
Oh and a few years ago they banned ad blockers from the app store https://adblockplus.org/blog/adblock-plus-for-android-remove...
So every time you see a shitty horrible ad on mobile, the reason you have to watch it is 100% Google.
It's worth a try if you haven't done so lately.
I believe you mean Android and the Play Store, not Chrome and the Chrome Store.
EDIT: To clarify, when I was a recruiter, we could build profiles on candidates, buy information on candidates, etc. It was pretty trivially easy to get all the relevant info from linkedin alone. My thought is, why not want that? It'd save me wasting a candidate's time if I could glance through his linkedin and see he/she wasn't a good fit. Because if you had a private profile, 80% of the time I'd be able to pull your phone number from a resume you'd posted somewhere (that my company paid pennies to have access to) and give you a call, just to find out real quick if you're a good fit or not.
Few people would hire me if they had access to my full Google profile, and I bet that's true of a lot of others.
Why is that? What is it that google knows about you that the rest of the world couldn't somewhat easily find out?
I'm mildly surprised, because I can't think of anything google knows about me that would prevent me from being hired. The only thing is maybe my porn history, which is all in incognito mode anyway, and really not even that shocking in terms of content.
Nice try :)
It's essentially the idea "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
Your profile isn't shared with normal advertisers, so I don't think there's any use of sharing it with people advertising job positions.
Recruiters are getting vile. Recently one contacted a friend and told my buddy that I had referred him. My buddy hit me up after the call mad that I'd told a recruiter he was looking.
I'd never met the recruiter but he'd added me on LI at some point in the past.
Be thankful that jobs search for you and not the opposite.
Should we be thankful that there are lots of realtors? We should be thankful there is enough real estate and the price is accessible (at least for some of us). Realtors are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
I liken it to web ads. The worst web ads will attempt drive-by downloads or are simply obnoxious -- loud, obtrusive, clickjacking, forced-redirects, autoplayed video on pay-per-bandwidth connections, ill-designed for different form-factors, badly layered under/over content. Then again, some ads are perfectly tailored, unobtrusive, small, and fast. Most people generally don't complain about the latter. They don't install AdBlockers to avoid the latter. But the latter are collateral damage of people avoiding the former.
> how lucky they are for being stalked by recruiters
This is not costless. I stopped answering my phone because it was causing context switches while at work and affecting my productivity. Eventually I figured out that I needed to unsubscribe from recruiter lists (some of which were probably email-confirmation spam traps) and to completely obfuscate my job search profiles while I was not searching.
How does your opinion differ from the statement above?
But let's ignore the analogy for a moment. If someone is annoyed by something, it is not less genuine because others would not be annoyed by it.
The former (speaking of recruiters targeting modern technology professionals; 19th century naval recruiters are a different story) has less of a history of escalating to physical violence and forced taking of what is desired by the pursuer, a context difference which results in a significant difference in the level of reasonably perceived threat to autonomy and physical safety involved.
The "sexy" jobs are not chasing you, just like the sexy people aren't usually the ones that become stalkers.
It was kind of flattering until I realized most of them never works for me.
They'll call, ask a lot, ask me to submit a cv although my updated profile is already on LinkedIn. They'll ask about salary expectations and then I won't hear from them again.
(BTW: Yes, I walk from one nice job to the next, can't complain. But I've found that for me talking to recruiters is pointless most of the times. FTR: I got my current job through a recruiter, first time in ten years I actually got a job through a recruiter.)
They also don't do any curation. The majority that most engineers deal with are cold calling hoping that the buzzword soup overlaps enough.
Glorified telemarketers.
regardless of that, i share the same privacy concerns others have about google, so don't see this as a particularly enticing announcement.
Fun game: find all jobs that could replace "recruiters" in the paragraph quoted above.
I get to send my resume to a few recruiters and they call me with all the openings that fit my skill set and i would be interested in. They make looking for a new position so much easier. Often they work in teams so you get multiple people doing this for you at the same time. Plus you build a relationship with them, their team, and the company so you with them better next time too.
They are invaluable.
I do have to say though that there is enormous variability in their skill. The secret is to only work with a few that have access to different contacts and that you trust. Don't spray your resume out there to bad recruiting companies.
I have noticed a difference between industries though. In my main industry (finance and financial technology) recruiters tend to be very knowledgeable and work very diligently to give you leads that fit your skills and priorities. I've noticed that in other industries like web or internet start up they can be atrocious. I get all sorts of random crap from them so you probably need to be extra careful in certain industries.
But i would never give up my recruiters. They take a lot of pain out of me trying to find a new position.
I have a lot of love for my recruiters. I wouldn't have nearly the career i do now without them.
I also spend the time to really talk to the recruiter the first couple times so he knows a lot about me and what I'm looking for. And i don't feel he would work out for me, i don't work with him.
I takes communication and i think part of the problem is on the job seekers side. Too many are uncommunicative.
To find new external recruiters i look at the job listings (Indeed, LinkedIn, etc) and see if i notice the same recruiting firm listed at jobs i find interesting. Then i get in touch with the recruiter directly and have a discussion with him. So i kind of look for recruiters more than i look for jobs.
They want huge commissions but they don't add a lot of value. That commission is almost always way more than it would cost me for my time to recruit from my own network or through traditional means.
Many of them never even meet their candidates. When I was in the market a long time ago - they would prep me with what to say to the hiring company even if it wasn't part of my skill-set at the time. That's very dishonest.
I'm an employer and they'll call me and immediately start talking about a candidate. They'll ramble on and on about how great their candidate is even though I'm not hiring or I'm only hiring for a different role.
Part of their strategy is to push a candidate on you, get you to like them and then talk about their commission only if necessary. They get really squeamish if you ask about commission.
They do a lot of leg work for you
- simple stats and analysis
They have access to many openings that aren't public.
- This is just companies choosing their preferred recruiters in a fragmented industry. A solid platform would solve this
And they can convince good companies to create an opening for you if you would fit really well with the company
- I dont see code doing this. But how often does this happen though?
I get to send my resume to a few recruiters and they call me with all the openings that fit my skill set and i would be interested in.
- Not sure why you think this is exclusive to recruiters. Isnt this just another way of describing filters on a recruitment website?
.They make looking for a new position so much easier. Often they work in teams so you get multiple people doing this for you at the same time. Plus you build a relationship with them, their team, and the company so you with them better next time too.
- Its not hard to code something that can achieve this. Even saw a post here on HN about a site that can mass apply for jobs for you. Could make it a little more intelligent so it learns which jobs you prefer.
And no algorithm, stats, and analysis is going to be a good as a recruiter who works regularly with a firm and knows what they are looking for, what the culture is like, and their internals.
Also recruiters help negotiate salary for you too, and that always helps.
They also take you out to lunch too :)
Also recruiters help negotiate salary for you too,
and that always helps.
I guess I'm confused as to why anyone would expect a better result by having someone else do your negotiation?
In NYC i might deal with 3 or 4. A lot o them have the same listings so i will work with the ones i either already have experience with or that seem to understand the biz best.
So maybe i work with one that has great leads with small trading firms, another with better access to large banks, one who is more on the financial technology side, and one who does tech start ups.
I try not to do one offs (deal with a recruiter for a single position) but it happens of course.
There are some places i never would have thought to interview at because of preconceived ideas i had, but I'm glad the recruiter was able to talk me into it (eg, Bloomberg has a top rate technical side handling their trading platform and news distribution - i never would have thought they were so talented).
Personally I wish we could go back to companies/managers/HR doing the actual applicant filtering.
Algorithms aren't person though, and they are ruthless.
- Not enough jobs. LinkedIn seems to have more jobs posted for the things I searched for. While many recruiters still post to Indeed, Glassdoor, ZipRecruiter etc... The beef of postings, from my experience, is found on LinkedIn. - Not easy to apply. LinkedIn has the ability to more easily apply. Yes, one could argue this is a bad thing (since companies get spammed with candidates) but I think with AI a lot of bad candidates could get filtered out more easily. - No social network. Since so many professionals use LinkedIn, it's easier to find people you know who work at a company you are applying for.
I think this is a long, long way to beating LinkedIn for job search.
I'm also a little concerned if this gets popular that competitors jobs will happen to be further down the list than they should be, but that's probably just my paranoia.
"Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/
Nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned.
In the next years, either we’ll have to break Google up, ban them from the European markets, or find a way for all citizen to have control over Google. And if we end up with the German government straight up buying Google.
But a single person having control over a monopoly that becomes a necessity in your life is becoming close to autocracy. It’s not that problematic yet, but if Google actually takes over the employment market, self-driving cars, and more (same with Amazon, if they actually manage to take over all Retail), then there’s a massive issue.
Autocratic Corporations should never be allowed to hold any monopoly – Cooperatives would be a better alternative for that.
Another word for this arrangement is "government".
"Yesterday, I was paranoid. I thought people were after me. Today, I know they're after me. There they are." [Points and nods across the street]
[The island's mayor waves half-heartedly]
[Robin Williams waves back]
I guess it's possible they could build google apps type thing for recruiters eventually and step on everyone, although it's doubtful it will do them much good to get into that field.
~Google AI
People want to know where the jobs went. People are looking for jobs? The only jobs safe from Google takeovers are Google jobs. And I'm not so sure how committed Google would be to keeping their own employees if they could automate them away too.
This move, like so many other things Google does now, just pushes the organic results further down and off page 1.
In the short to mid term, the other job sites - Indeed, Monster, Ziprecruiter, could act as a funnel for populating the longer tail of job postings. In aggregate, it is very, very hard to get postings from all of these small businesses that lack a robust ATS. That is why companies like Ziprecruiter have to run their ads (to acquire employers) all over the place.
In the long term, it will be easy for Google to cut out the other job sites. If you follow where job sites get their traffic, with the exception of Linkedin, it is basically all ultimately from Google. I'm somewhat surprised it took Google this long. Perhaps in part it was reactionary to Facebook. ( https://www.facebook.com/business/news/take-the-work-out-of-... )
If Google takes that path, then it has to start charging companies for job postings. Already today companies like Uber have to hand over millions of dollars to Google to acquire their workforce. I imagine this would only strengthen Google's hand.
Once you click one of those postings you get a screen like this [2]
However, be aware of the date filter because the posts listed here are older than what Google says. Many, if not all, of the posts scrapped from remoteok.io are several months old, even years, so the "x days ago" that Google shows is just the time when the post was indexed rather than the time the post was created. So you are still prone to see useless posts.
CEO of Monster said basically the same thing - I can't find the quote on mobile, but essentially "This fits with our goal, which is for candidates to find a good fit. This will be difficult times, however, for jobs sites that depend on SEO."
EDIT: found the article https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/20/google-launches-its-ai-pow...
Kudos to google, hopefully this helps majority of America find jerbs.
most hackernews readers think this is stupid because our industry has different problems. Our jobs problem is: - "employers often lie because they want to pay less than a typical employee is worth"
but also at the same time:
- "applicants often lie about their experiences and such"
So there are 4 quadrants: honest/dishonest applicants and honest/dishonest employers and where they overlap is small.
Niche job boards FTW
You don't get cold calls. You plonk your CV somewhere, take a position and then have to change your phone number because they won't go away even if you have taken a position :)
My first OSS contribution, before I could code, was a Bluecurve icon set for Rhythmbox that was merged into an ancient version of Rhythmbox on an ancient version of Fedora Core Linux on Jun 13, 2005. Your name stays in open source things virtually forever, and if you make it easy to find your email, recruiters hound you non-stop:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/rhythmbox.git/tree/r...
Also, hiring managers, or decision makers (I could count myself as someone in this category) often do give a crap about OSS work. Give it a shot! Find a project doing something you enjoy and contribute to it. It doesn't have to just be code, documentation and graphics are also important (amongst other things).
Of course, I am not now not will I ever be in web development.
The more opportunities = the more likelihood for a great opportunity. I'm always polite, tell them I'm not looking now, send me the job description and I'll forward it to my friends who are, reply to their email and tell them it's my preferred method of communicating.
Lets me build up a nice fat folder in Inbox of "jobs", filled daily by recruiters. I can skim it, see none of the companies I'm interested in, and click "done" on the whole folder. Takes a couple seconds, no skin off my bones, and the last time I was job hunting it meant my search took about a month to find something that really is a perfect fit.
So, why not spend a couple minutes a day dealing with recruiters?
Basically google will not be using prior knowledge about you to drive jobs search results. The results will be literally based off your search string (and applied filters) alone.
Edit: Found the article https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/20/google-launches-its-ai-pow...
My guess is this is a response to Microsoft buying LinkedIn.
Oh, I thought the goal was to obtain incredibly detailed consumer profiles by offering to search whatever it is you are looking for, and then sell targeted ads based on those profiles, in order to obtain monetary profit.
In the techrunch article, the interviewed employee says they won't be using prior knowledge to drive jobs search results. Sure, ads may become more targeted, but this isn't your typical "users also bought..." type deal.
Isn't that being "nationalistic"? Can't you be universal? Come on, Google!
[1] https://www.recode.net/2017/4/29/15479932/alphabet-revenue-g...
"Hmm, not sure if Google is trying to tell me something..."
Even if I paste the URL of the special jobs result page back into Firefox, I get redirected back to a standard Google results page.
https://www.google.com/search?q=jobs+near+me&ibp=htl;jobs
Edit: after running "forget about this site" in the history, it now works. I guess some cookie or account setting was blocking it.
Honestly the wording makes me think it just wasn't ready in time for the announcement, although I'm not sure how they'd have up-to-date data.
It's one of the few applications of AI over street view data that doesn't utterly creep me out and actually seems quite useful.
You will have to be IN the US, near, or using a VPN routing through the US to see the new feature, otherwise you will get the same old results that you have been getting so far. Notice that if you are going to use a VPN you MUST NOT be logged into your Google account, otherwise the search engine will ignore your request because it will detect that your account is not from the countries selected for this release.
Also, maybe I'm just not a typical user, but it would be nice to have some better control over location, or at least indication of how close to the target location each job is.
Why would that be necessary? Advertisers don't get any information at all about you and it works.