A RecruitingBlogs.com Rant

There are a lot of things I really like about RecruitingBlogs.com There are a few things that bug me a little but the thing that I am going to be writing about below bothers me the most and it has to stop. I encourage members who feel that their time spent on RecruitingBlogs.com is being eaten up by what I am going to write below, please do let me know so I can see about it.

You have to stop messaging people with the same message to each person. It says that you don't care and that you're not smart and that you don't get the recruiting industry. It doesn't work that way out there and it doesn't work that way in here. I know it’s a social network and that is why most things go but time wasting with valueless introductions can’t be tolerated over and over again. It's a complete waste of time to leave someone you don't know a message on RecruitingBlogs.com about something of no value.

Please stop leaving comments to all of the pretty ladies telling them that you like their pictures. I like lots of those pictures too but you don't see me leaving comments talking about what they look like and you don't see anybody I do business with or those I respect and look up to doing business that way.

Here is another hint. If you're a guy and your friendslist is made of up 99% women - that becomes your profile. The reverse is also true.

I am trying really hard to make RecruitingBlogs.com into something that is going to be something. I don't make everyone happy all of the time and I sometimes don't get to things that I say I am going to get to but I don't use RecruitingBlogs.com as a low end piece of shit sourcing and promotional tool for my business.

Thanks for letting me vent. I hope you don’t find it a waste of your time.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on July 18, 2008 at 10:46am

I just wish I could find an overseas connection that might have access to, say, 250 excellent technical candidates........that would be willing to work with me......that's what I'm here for. But so far - no luck.

:)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Recruiting Animal on July 18, 2008 at 11:03am

I might be wrong but I thought that he said he loves this site better than ERE because it doesn't censor anything. But maybe he thinks a certain amount of censorship is okay. I don't know for sure.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Canto on July 18, 2008 at 11:08am

Animal... may I ask; Do you think a certain amount of censorship is okay? I'm very interested to hear exactly what you would do.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on July 18, 2008 at 11:09am

I censor myself. #(@(&(@. See?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Recruiting Animal on July 18, 2008 at 11:17am

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy. What I would do is not the question. Maybe you didn't see the big discussion from 2 weeks ago.

Here's the link: http://is.gd/X3U

Josh made a distinction between ERE and Rbc. I said that it would not always be so clear. And that's what we're discussing here today.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Slouch on July 18, 2008 at 11:21am

I have banned way more accounts than ERE has.

Please note: if you want to stop getting email reminders that someone has left a comment here on this thread, you can click a link at the bottom of the page called Stop Following.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RecruiterGuy on July 18, 2008 at 11:22am

Hey, I can't help it if all the cute guys send me a request - geez.

Seriously - you're doing a terrific job here Slouch. Shame there aren't 3 or 4 more admins to help you along and lighten the load, eh?

;)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on July 18, 2008 at 11:31am

Animal-Man, thanks for thinking of me :)

Listen, not that I need to defend JD (or anyone else), but I will say intelligently that there is a difference between censoring/chilling someone's free speech and asking them not to post overt sales msgs on everybody's social media profiles. Perhaps that's my own ethnocentric view, but I do appreciate that I'm not being bombarded with sales msgs all day (trust me that I get enough of those calls and emails as it is!) :) I'll tell you what I don't see JD doing: I don't see him removing debates in the affirmative or negative because of the fact that the aff or neg don't agree with his friends. And that, my friend, equals big-time respect for him in my book.

Let me shoot real straight with you because I don't want to leave any room for interpretation: There is a difference between speaking your mind and posting mktg/sales advertisements on people's personal profiles. I didn't make many friends on ERE in the past for saying the following: If you want to use the forum and discussion groups to post sales/marketing advertisements, I don't want to see your %^&*. If I have to read your $%^ advertisements, at least respect me enough to give me an ad to click through. And on top of that, at least have the common decency to pay ERE or RBC if you want to ride on their coat-tails to drive business. ERE and RBC DON'T NEED YOU if you cruise around looking for free lunches - in fact, the very act of posting free marketing/sales advertisements in the forums and on people's profiles is what destroys networks!

Here's the truth: I'm sick and tired of having to see people advertise their classes on other sites through the chatroom here. I'm also sick of people advertising them in the forums . . . unless they have the decency and respect to PAY for that space.

If you want to market and advertise, pay up - there is no such thing as a free lunch. I can tell you, from a biz perspective, that if I'm paying to have advertising on a site in the form of banners . . . I want to know that I'm not going to see people trying to back-door me without paying up as well. And if JD puts his foot down like he is, he'll make not only his current advertisers happy, but us members as well.

Do you agree? Feel free to argue the negative here and I'll debate you anywhere, anytime, anyplace :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Slouch on July 18, 2008 at 11:33am

You see here how this has wasted some RecruitingBlogs.com viewing time for at least 2 members ( two comments)

Maybe at the end of the day, wasting people's time on social networks is something that can't be avoided. I think though for now and the way this works here is that it's important to try to not waste anyone's time.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Recruiting Animal on July 18, 2008 at 11:41am

JD are you serious about that example. It might be dumb but Georgie could just delete it if he didn't want it there. That's one of the nice things about ning, you can delete your own comments at any time and you can delete those of others on your page.

What JL is talking about is something else. Promoting things offsite. (Like the Recruiting Animal Show). And -- what I was talking about -- censoring content.

And he has clarified his position from a couple of weeks ago. He wasn't complaining about the enforcement of guidelines in general -- just censorship of intellectual content in debate.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Recruiting Animal on July 18, 2008 at 11:45am

No debate just a question. I think the tone of a debate was also the issue on ERE, not just the intellectual content. Is censorship based on ungentlemanly behaviour during a discussion taboo or legit. I think most people would argue the latter but they would want some impartial and transparent tribunal for appeal rather than having it left to an arbitrary judge or a secret star chamber.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on July 18, 2008 at 11:58am

Animal, great points. You're a smart guy, and I like that. Let me just say that censorship is often less about tone than it is to quelch a dissenting voice to a staked interest. Tone may be what the PR machine says, but we all know (at the end of the day), that censorship in the name of tone is a bunch of horse-$%^. :) So were lynch mobs.

Also, I believe that transparent, and often nefarious intention, is more ungentlemanly than a dissenting voice to the status quo. Lucikly, throughout American history, we've had incredible people like W. E. B. Du Bois prove this . . . in some cases, post-humously.