he profile being presented.
The main issue is that, much like a Twitter feed without an image attached, not seeing a profile picture implies that someone doesn't care about the profile, thus it's probably not up to date. Is it 100% fair to people who might not want pictures of themselves on the internet? Probably not, but there's also a strong correlation between accounts that have 1 connection and no profile picture.
As for questions of ethnicity/gender/physical appearance, I think those issues go out the window pretty quickly when it comes down to making a placement and earning a fee, if they existed in the first place. I'm interested in skills and marketability, so I'll contact the person with the skills I need no matter what they look like. After all, there are plenty of reasons a candidate might not work out, so it doesn't make sense to restrict the talent pool to attractive white people.…
egrees of you. So if you wanted to have a good sized database you had to connect to a lot of people.
If you wanted to be found you had to be connected to a lot of people as well.
And you didn't restrict yourself to your own line of work because you wanted to inherit the contacts of your contacts and anyone might connect you to the people you wanted to ultimately reach. I could connect with a kangaroo farmer Australia who was connected to an accountant in Toronto who was valuable to me.
Now Linkedin allows you to search everybody no matter how many contacts you have. But it doesn't show you the names of people beyond the 2nd degree so it still makes sense to be a promiscuous connector.
I'm going to discuss this on my show today. You're no dummy and if you don't get the basics of LI a lot of people must be confused.
o do business. It would restrict recruiters from sending resumes to prospective clients. I attended the first hearing in June and granted there have been and are by the sounds of it some very unscrupulous staffing firms that are in fact treating temps very poorly, but for the supporters of this bill to paint with such a broad paint brush is just irresponsible. Any reputable agency, will have a job description, meet their payroll requirements and deadlines and moreover will work with clients to be sure the workplace environment is safe. I would encourage you and your network if you have not done so, spread the word and keep up to date with the MAPS contingent and collectively with much needed support we can defeat this bill that will do nothing but harm the "good, reputable and ethical staffing firms not only in MA but those in the region that do work iwth MA clients. http://http://www.recruitersnation.org/staffing-in-massachusetts-who-is-for-real…
move forward except through you or the other recruiter would have to do a split with you?
Would you also restrict them from applying on their own direct to a company or if they did and got hired would they be required to tell the company that even though the company will not pay a fee they would have to since you have a contractual right to represent them? Or would you require them to pay you a Fee as their agent if they found their own job?
If I had an exclusive search, contacted a candidate who told me they had an agreement with another recruiter to represent them I would drop that candidate off the radar or tell them they would have to rescind the exclusive agreement and call me back. I would think the candidate would be none too happy to lose a shot at a great job.
I would think an exclusive to rep a candidate would have to have a reasonable time limit or a candidate would be foolish to sign or agree to an exclusive. And what would you do if they ignored it, sue them?…
if you receive too many incidences of restrictions, they SUSPEND your account for a period of time at least 30 days (eternity when actively sourcing - right?)
Linkedin does not educate members (non recruiters especially don't know this) that by simply clicking the I DON'T KNOW response that it is a mark against that person. They think it is harmless. LINKEDIN need to make that clear to everyone. Ultimately, who is penalized? The person that is just trying to connect with someone. I usually send a note saying that I have a job that matches their profile etc.
Linkedin also says to send invites to people you know. That makes absolutely no sense because - the reason you are sending in invite is to get connected to that person and be able to contact them. I accept invites all of the time from people I don't know.
Linkedin in is NOT responding to my requests to discuss and reconsider this 30 day suspension. I am so livid because they call you when they want to sell you a very expensive membership.
What are your thoughts?…
on you can't get more invites either.
After 3 more IDK's they are more serious, they restrict account and again ask you to re-re-read the UL and off you go with a very stern warning. Until account is off restriction you can't get more invites either.
After 3 more they get more serious and "review" your account, keep it on restriction until review is done (1-2 days) and then they release it with another warning.
I know of one guy that sent out a couple thousand invites had 100 IDK's and they still gave him more invites etc... with a slap on the wrist.
Jerry, as for the No or Reject. I agree, on several occasions I've accepted invites from people I'm not fond of as I'm an open networker. So I have on occasion (twice) accepted the invite and then gone back in and removed them from my network. But really what purpose would a Not Accept or Reject button serve. An IDK puts a block on future invties from that person. You can "re-invite" them but they can't re-invite you.
If you archive an invite you can go back later on an accept if you so choose.
firstname.lastname@example.org 8600+ first level…
he best recruiters that they see the world in abundance and would not restrict connecting with anyone. Connecting is a 2 way street.
Also I would add that you need to view building your network from a long term perspective. Perhaps today other recruiters might be your competition but what if a few years from now you decide to compile all of your recruiting experiences into a product or book to help fellow recruiters learn from, well then you would need to have a network full of recruiters. Your LinkedIn network is a lifetime asset, and your goals will change many times over your lifetime.
My philosophy is everyone deserves a chance (to connect) until proven otherwise.
Along those same lines I recommend not being serendipitous about forwarding invites. It is not your job to be a gate keeper for your friends and contacts. How can you presume to know who I might want to connect with? What is the worst that can happen? If the introduction/message is something I didn’t want then I just take 3 seconds to delete it.
PS - If you agree with these philosophies please feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn.
Happy Holidays Everyone!
to your dept.'s LinkedIn and Twitter accounts and Facebook page allowing active/passive job seekers a way to begin networking with your company's recruiters, rather than forcing them to try to find the right person via the various restricted search tools on the above mentioned networks. (Facebook and LinkedIn restrict results by network reach and Twitter's Summize is still very limited).
And when I say your "dept.'s accounts," I mean having an overall account for LinkedIn and Twitter. The benefits to that are: 1. When a recruiter leaves a company, the network they built goes with it. A company feels a sense of security knowing they can build a network and retain it over the years with a main account. 2. Rather than linking to a single recruiter's account, a main account allows all recruiters at the company to benefit by picking and choosing who to approach (depending on their assignments). Think of it like a big pool of potential candidates that your team gets to strategically handle, rather than handle on your own with no strategy.
Would your dept. pay to be on such a directory? (Keep in mind the customized page as well)…