Let's go full disclosure today at the HR Capitalist. I firmly believe that the hegemony (look it up people) of huge job sites like Monster and CareerBuilder is on the decline, and I think that has implications for lazy HR people and lazy recruiters. The strength of the job sites traditionally has meant one thing - you had a one stop shop to post and pray (you post the job and do nothing else, and because the site was a destination for job seekers, you'd get some hits close enough to what you were looking for).
But if you can't post and pray, where do you go? The obvious answer is that you need to build networks via LinkedIn and become proficient at using that tool in your sourcing and recruiting. After LinkedIn, where do you turn? To the untrained eye, most of us have read that there are thousands - no millions - of resumes floating around the Internet that can be harvested by Google.
The key to harvesting those resumes has often been positioned as follows: you need to become proficient in writing search strings that yield the result you need. If you can't write good Google search strings, you won't get the results. If you're good at it, you'll unlock the potential.
I've had Boolean search on my list of training needs for a while to become a better source. Could it be that the hype for resumes via Google is louder than the reality? Consider the following experiment comparing quality of resume search results when using Google vs. the Monster resume database from Boolean Black Belt:
"If you are a source or recruiter I am sure that at some point in your career you’ve read somewhere or heard someone say how the Internet has 10X the number of candidates that can be found on the online job boards. I’ve always taken that for face value because, to be honest, it’s really tough to prove or disprove such a figure/statement. So that whole “there are TONS more candidates on the Internet than the job boards” thing has been slowly eating away at me and I’ve decided to take a stab at dispelling the myth by pitting The Internet (via Google) vs. Monster.
I chose to go with 1 Internet search engine (Google) and 1 major job board (Monster). Yes – I know that there are resumes that you can only find using other search engines (hey – I do have a Black Belt in Boolean) - but I figured I would let the 800 lb gorillas of their respective niches battle it out. Plus, there are other major job boards – so we’re even.
Search #2 Java, Oracle, State of MD
Google – 182 results
(intitle:resume | inurl:resume) java oracle 20601..21930 (MD | Maryland) -~job -~jobs
Monster – 592 results @ 1 month, 1000+ @ 3 months
Java and oracle – in MD
Search: Accountant in the state of MD
Google – 19 results
(intitle:resume | inurl:resume) “accountant” 20601..21930 (MD | Maryland) -~job -~jobs
Monster – 711 results @ 1 month
WOW. I'd encourage you to go out and read the whole post, fascinating stuff. While you're at it, subscribe to Boolean Black Belt. Trust me, it's an accessible voice that you need to hear. The results above give you some perspective. Here are my thoughts - those search results indicate there is quite a bit of hype when it comes to the power of the raw Internet as a sourcing tool, so if you're trying to grow as a HR pro who recruits, I'd encourage you not to drink this glass of kool-aid, and instead invest all of your initial time in learning how to grow your LinkedIn presence and then learn how to use it effectively to source.
Don't read the results as proof you need to sign a five year contract with Monster. Read the results as there are better tools for you to start your sourcing career with than the raw Internet.
You'll read things that advise you to take a Boolean class as you try to make the transition to become a better source of candidates. If you're just starting out, be like Flavor Flav and don't believe the hype. Learn LinkedIn and prosper.