Tutorial Tuesday: What is Semantic Search? - RecruitingBlogs2024-03-29T14:54:53Zhttps://recruitingblogs.com/forum/topics/tutorial-tuesday-what-is?feed=yes&xn_auth=noSorry I'm just getting around…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-01-07:502551:Comment:4801102009-01-07T23:08:25.056ZRegina Farrhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/ReginaFarr
Sorry I'm just getting around to reading this...good stuff... but i agree with Steve.... sounds like as recruiters and sourcers we need to truly understand the roles for which we seek candidates.....Look forward to reading more.
Sorry I'm just getting around to reading this...good stuff... but i agree with Steve.... sounds like as recruiters and sourcers we need to truly understand the roles for which we seek candidates.....Look forward to reading more. Glen-
Hidden in your respons…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2008-12-30:502551:Comment:4645862008-12-30T18:31:31.820ZSteve Levyhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/Dieselevy
Glen-<br />
<br />
Hidden in your response - at least to me - is the notion that many recruiters/sourcers simply do not understand the job they're being paid to fill. Semantic searching requires intimate knowledge of the position in question and how work is accomplished - rather than tossing in a few keywords in a <a href="http://www.madlibs.com/">Mad Libs</a> attempt to find a person.
Glen-<br />
<br />
Hidden in your response - at least to me - is the notion that many recruiters/sourcers simply do not understand the job they're being paid to fill. Semantic searching requires intimate knowledge of the position in question and how work is accomplished - rather than tossing in a few keywords in a <a href="http://www.madlibs.com/">Mad Libs</a> attempt to find a person. Irina,
I would agree that mos…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2008-12-30:502551:Comment:4639662008-12-30T15:21:37.445ZGlen Catheyhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GlenCathey
Irina,<br />
I would agree that most sourcers and recruiters are trying to find people who have had specific experience performing the role and responsibilities required (and desired) of a job description – but they are NOT actually performing semantic search (not specifically leveraging semantics in their search tactics and strategy). A collection of search terms is just that – a collection of words.<br />
<br />
The NEAR operator and configurable proximity functionality of search applications such as Lucene…
Irina,<br />
I would agree that most sourcers and recruiters are trying to find people who have had specific experience performing the role and responsibilities required (and desired) of a job description – but they are NOT actually performing semantic search (not specifically leveraging semantics in their search tactics and strategy). A collection of search terms is just that – a collection of words.<br />
<br />
The NEAR operator and configurable proximity functionality of search applications such as Lucene and dtSearch are the best ways to leverage semantics when searching because they allow you to target sentence structure, such as when people talk about doing X with Y (configuring routers, reconciling reports, administering a server cluster, implementing SAP, customizing interfaces, performing SOX audits, etc.).<br />
<br />
In response to your question of whether or not I would consider the following to be "semantic" searches:<br />
<br />
* Try to add keywords that may not be on the job description but (since you know the subject area) are often found on the right pages/resumes. These keywords may sometimes be assumed by the person who wrote the description but not explicitly said. These may be certifications, industry-specific words etc. As an example, words like Swing and Eclipse need to be used along with Java to point us in the right direction.<br />
* Try to modify your keywords so that they are likely to point to the right stuff. Looking for a User Interface engineer for Windows? Name UI packages for Windows such as MFC.<br />
* Add keywords with a - sign on Google (NOT on databases) if they are likely to take you away from the right results. We're all taught to add -job -jobs etc. to our Google resume search strings.<br />
* On Google, look for your results using a site: command pointing to sites that are likely to have what you are looking for.<br />
<br />
Answer - while these are certainly search best practices, they are not instrinsically semantic search.<br />
<br />
Adding additional keywords of any type to a search, or using the NOT/- operator may (or may not) help narrow search results, but adding or selectively removing keywords/search terms in many cases simply produces results with the search terms (and without the removed terms) without implying any responsibility with the search terms.<br />
<br />
I’ll use your UI Engineer as an example. There are many people who can mention (UI or user interface or GUI) and MFC in their resume who in fact do not have any significant experience with interface design, even though the words are somewhere in the resume. Even if we added other UI-related related terms such as (wireframe or human factors or cognitive or heuristic) we can still return many resumes that match the keywords but who have not been primarily responsible for interface design. Sourcers and recruiters encounter this all the time – the words are in the resume, but the person has not actually DONE what they need them to have done in their career. That is an excellent example of a high lexical similarity between a search and the results (the words match) and low semantic similarity of the search and the results (the person’s experience does NOT match).<br />
<br />
This can also be evidenced in the “technical skills summary” of most resumes, where a laundry list of skills and technologies are present, but simply being mentioned does not imply any level of expertise or paid experience. Hence someone could mention Java, Eclipse, and Swing in their resume, but not have any paid experience developing applications with them (as in educational experience or at home). This is a normal experience for sourcers and recruiters and so they assume this is simply “the way it is.”<br />
<br />
However, if we use the NEAR command (or even better - a more powerful proximity search operator such as dtSearch’s w/x), we could add this to a search string: (develop* or design*) NEAR (Java or Eclipse or Swing), and the results MUST mention Java or Eclipse or Swing within 10 words of develop or design, increasing the likelihood that the results will include resumes that have sentences specifically stating development or design-level responsibility with Java/Eclipse/Swing. This is tapping into semantics – the presence of words does not necessarily imply any meaning, but words in the same sentence do imply meaning in most (but certainly not all) cases.<br />
<br />
I whole heartedly agree that there are some keywords that make semantic search difficult, but as you stated, creative application of search tactics and strategies can in most cases solve these challenges. Hi Glen,
Thanks for the post…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2008-12-30:502551:Comment:4630722008-12-30T02:37:15.157ZIrina Shamaevahttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/IrinaShamaeva
Hi Glen,<br />
<br />
Thanks for the post. Would you agree that in fact we are all trying to do a semantic search when we look for candidates who match a job description? You are right that simply picking a few keywords and pasting them into a search string will end up costing us a lot of reviewing of irrelevant results.<br />
<br />
The NEAR operator is one way to narrow down the results. Would you consider the following to be "semantic" searches?<br />
<br />
* Try to add keywords that may not be on the job description but…
Hi Glen,<br />
<br />
Thanks for the post. Would you agree that in fact we are all trying to do a semantic search when we look for candidates who match a job description? You are right that simply picking a few keywords and pasting them into a search string will end up costing us a lot of reviewing of irrelevant results.<br />
<br />
The NEAR operator is one way to narrow down the results. Would you consider the following to be "semantic" searches?<br />
<br />
* Try to add keywords that may not be on the job description but (since you know the subject area) are often found on the right pages/resumes. These keywords may sometimes be assumed by the person who wrote the description but not explicitly said. These may be certifications, industry-specific words etc. As an example, words like Swing and Eclipse need to be used along with Java to point us in the right direction.<br />
* Try to modify your keywords so that they are likely to point to the right stuff. Looking for a User Interface engineer for Windows? Name UI packages for Windows such as MFC.<br />
* Add keywords with a - sign on Google (NOT on databases) if they are likely to take you away from the right results. We're all taught to add -job -jobs etc. to our Google resume search strings.<br />
* On Google, look for your results using a site: command pointing to sites that are likely to have what you are looking for.<br />
<br />
There are some requirements/keywords that make semantic search very hard. If you are looking for an engineer from Microsoft or Yahoo, or (as it was posted on the <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/1176637">LinkedIn "Boolean Strings" group</a>) for a person in Oregon (OR), that may be hard.<br />
Sometime ago I got a recommendation to consult with two eye doctors with the last names Good and Day in San Francisco (true story). Boy, was it a project to find them online. But with the right <a href="http://www.recruitingblogs.com/group/booleanstrings">Boolean Strings</a> even this is doable.<br />
<br />
-Irina Glen, this is fantastic stuff…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2008-12-23:502551:Comment:4523552008-12-23T12:30:30.654ZAmitai Givertzhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/Recruitomatic
Glen, this is fantastic stuff. Thanks for posting.
Glen, this is fantastic stuff. Thanks for posting. Wonderful piece Glen and make…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2008-12-23:502551:Comment:4522772008-12-23T09:49:53.663ZMaureen Sharibhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/MaureenSharib
Wonderful piece Glen and makes me think about the "semantic" component of telephone names sourcing - to use some of your words (in italics) mixed with mine (in non-italics): <i>"In other words, a sourcer or recruiter</i>...creating communication with a Gatekeeper, uses words... <i>that go beyond simply trying to match the words themselves and attempting to delve into the meaning implied by the words."</i><br />
<br />
I have long wondered how many different ways people interpret simple phrases/requests for…
Wonderful piece Glen and makes me think about the "semantic" component of telephone names sourcing - to use some of your words (in italics) mixed with mine (in non-italics): <i>"In other words, a sourcer or recruiter</i>...creating communication with a Gatekeeper, uses words... <i>that go beyond simply trying to match the words themselves and attempting to delve into the meaning implied by the words."</i><br />
<br />
I have long wondered how many different ways people interpret simple phrases/requests for information. It is a key understanding of successful phone sourcers.<br />
<br />
Glen did an amazing one hour class on his Boolean techniques on December 16 over on the MagicMethod network. If you missed it, you can read the entire chat log <a href="http://magicmethod.ning.com/profiles/blogs/magicmethod-phone-sourcing-11">here</a>.