career opportunities as opposed to a candidate who has their resume on a job board? Would it be "willing to listen as opposed to actively looking"?If recruiters are proudly not sending job board candidates because internal recruiters can find them. Why are linkedin candidates better when internal recruiters can also find them ...for free...when job board candidates require either paying for postings or paying for database access?
Because on LinkedIn, they are not necessarily 'candidates'. They are simply profiles. Also, I think the natural default on LinkedIn is to have 'career opportunities' checked, so it doesn't necessarily mean the individual is really open or remotely 'looking'. I think the key difference though is that even if they are 'open', they are not 'looking' in the same way that a candidate on a job board is. So, you need to recruit them, call them up and see if they are open and if so possibly a candidate for your search. It's a big difference.…
ishable felony to publish any kind of harassment, in any form, online... any kind of intentionally and knowingly false statement intended to inflict pain on the recipient or subject.
I think this is a great idea. Here is what Ellen Pao has to say:
ving you a thumbs up to all my contacts" or what. What AM I saying when I accept?
Again it goes back to how much you've invested in what you are giving your competitors. If I just hit a few buttons and all sudden I've got 500 "friends" then sure - you can have them too.
I know the difference between a name in my social network list and a number in my cell phone - and theres is a big difference.
So again - no thanks. I'll keep my contacts.