d the incentive be for a regular person (like me) who has never paid for any LI upgrades/features to do so now or in the future?
I'm not saying I wouldn't take advantage of any (professionally useful) extras available (for searching/sourcing/contacting), if that cost wasn't coming directly out of my near-empty wallet. But until then, I don't get it.
I know LI pushes HARD to lure regular people (non-recruiters) to upgrade and I think the "features" they tout as valuable are entirely pointless. Apparently, the most popular LI feature is "who viewed your profile." Who freaking cares! Unless those lookie-loos are doing something beneficial (beyond viewing) what difference does it make if you see who they are?
@Matt - Ima head over to FB to source for "someone who looks like Turtle" -- wish me luck. …
too liked the bit about being a blogger and having thousands of followers. I take great pride in blocking people who follow me. Not all people, just the one's who don't know who I am, don't appreciate my sense of humor, and are obviously just trolling for followers by following me. I wonder if other people intentionally lower their follow numbers?
I guess I feel like I want people to follow me, who are interested in building relationships. That is why I like recrutingingblogs so much. Everyone who I have communicated with is genuinely friendly and sincere.
I look forward to your next post. And to a new word?…
bought property with big gardens who are now developing them into more houses to fund their retirement were extremely lucky. The reason i say this is that people who have done well for themselves who are in their 30s and 40 now have never had the chance to buy property with such plots and therefore will be much worse off in 20 years time than the baby boomers.
Would be very interested in comments on this subject.
Also baby boomers in sales especially in technology used to work on FAT margins which meant FAT pay checks. These margins are not around anymore.…
a test go sit down and take it "would be hard pressed to state their names correctly. On the flip side some people are test lovers and stumble through a verbal interview. So we get into something like,"candidate a. Scored off the charts on the sales proficiency tests but the guy is like watching paint dry in a personal interview."
Hiring manager: " I don't need a test taker, I need a face guy.
When the test says one thing and the person presents totally differently which is more important? In the real world I know the answer but if you are a test believer do you bring him back for another interview because of test scores or do you scrap both candidate a. And candidate b. who did poorly on the test, but presented well and has a track record of successful selling and keep looking until you find a test taker who presents well. I know companies who do just that. They have about the same rate of successful hires as the company who doesn't test,does a series of interviews and checks references.
I think we can test people for a lot of technical aptitude but other than that not so much value as personal interaction and validating past performance.I have seen the test mania come and go about five different times over the course of my time in recruiting. Most of the clients I have had who got all excited about them, dumped them after a few years. They were passing up too many people who went to work for their competitors and kicked their butts in the marketplace.…