• Pingback: | Comparing the Competencies Between a “RINO” and an Exceptional Recruiter - http://t.co/Z7DybTqOqJ + MORE | Get Hiring()

  • http://www.inboundrecruiter.com Brian Kevin Johnston

    Hey Raj- Great content and dive into other SM sites… Be well All..

  • http://www.gild.com Brad Warga

    Gild (www.gild.com) is a tool that helps you aggregate all of the social data mentioned in the article and converts it into a candidate profile.

  • http://www.brandemix.com Jason Ginsburg

    I would also add Pinterest, which is being used for recruiting very cleverly by Taco Bell, Ann Taylor Loft, PETA, and Bridgepoint Education.

    Perhaps obvious, but YouTube is also worth a look. UPSjobs has a great channel, as do Microsoft and Starbucks.

    And don’t forget Google Plus! It’s the second-largest social network in the world and has the SEO help from its parent company. Easy to post status updates, links, and photos, just like Facebook.

  • Keith Halperin

    Thanks, Raj.
    1) Like other SM tools, these don’t seem particularly useful at getting people RIGHT NOW, which is what we’re usually paid to do.
    2) The more recruiters use these tools and the faster recruiters start using them, the less effective they’ll be to recruit, as LinkedIn has been choked/clogged by increasing recruiter overuse. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to start using these tools (and others that access them like TalentBin, Entelo, Gild, etc.) RIGHT NOW and tell all their recruiter friends to do likewise. Meanwhile, inform your hiring managers that they’ll have perfect people available in 6-18 months, just not right now. 😉

    Keith

  • http://www.exaqueo.com Susan Strayer LaMotte

    Raj, I’d be remiss if I didn’t add the concept of social evidence. What’s great about these networks is that they actually show evidence of work–so you can see code produced and how well people are respected, and their advice is respected by peers in the network. RemarkableHire (www.remarkablehire.com) actually aggregates all of that for you so you can source in one place and have access to all of these networks instead of going on each one.

    What’s great about RemarkableHire and other tools doing some similar things out there is the sophistication of the algorithms that measure the value of the content someone contributes in those networks. So much better than assuming someone is Ruby savvy just because it’s listed on their resume.

    Also, for those searching, note that Dribble is actually Dribbble (three bs instead of two).

  • Keith Halperin

    @ Everybody: these also tend to bias things in favor of people who are able/willing to be out there promoting themselves publicly, as opposed to folks just methodically going about doing great work. Also, how likely is it that you’d be getting people through these sources that you couldn’t find elsewhere- isn’t it *getting the same “Fab 5%,” just on different sites? Finally, finding them isn’t usually the problem,- the problem is usually getting great people to talk with you about your so-so job, company, etc., just like dozens of other recruiters…

    Cheers,
    Keith

    *Maybe not- maybe you’d get hordes of incredible people you couldn’t find through other means. Does anybody have evidence one way or the other?

  • http://www.exaqueo.com Susan Strayer LaMotte

    @Keith two things to reference important to your post. These sites in the tech world aren’t just about being out there–people spending time have a strong reputation as leaders in the space and it demonstrates their goodwill to help peers who are having problems. Plus, it shows that they like what they do so much, they spend extra time helping others. I also know from tech recruiting I’ve done in the past that sites like StackOverflow are just part of their daily routine–it’s like Facebook for the rest of us.

    Second, volume isn’t the problem. Quality is. And that’s what tools like RemarkableHire yield–quality talent–they go beyond what someone purports they can do and actually yield people who have evidence of actually doing it. Sure, many of these candidates ar passive, but learning how to talk to passive candidates, build relationships with them and not hard sell them in the first line of an email is key. That’s why it’s great to see evidence of their work. It allows recruiters, hiring managers and future peers to actually engage them in discussion.

  • Keith Halperin

    Thanks, Susan.
    1)”people spending time have a strong reputation as leaders in the space and it demonstrates their goo ALL kinds of people get lots of good job offers, just technical people get good job offers, or just create good will for them?

    2) As the saying goes:
    “If you have time to build a ‘relationship’ with a candidate, you don’t have enough reqs.”

    3) IMHO, quality ISN’T the problem- the problem is getting wannabe companies and their spoiled founders/CXOs/sr. execs/managers to realize that the people they want are not interested in their marketing-hype- the “Fab 5%” are not going to be interested in “Top-30% companies”. Most companies/managers need to realize that they JUST CAN’T HAVE the people they think they’re entitled to, and it’s a lot easier to try and convince them that you just need to look someplace else or a little harder/deeper than have them face *that fact. However, arrogance, fear, and ignorance/incompetence are three strong motivators to get people to get people to spend their money on something….

    Happy Friday, my ‘Cruitaz!

    Keith

    * A scarier implication is that they REALLY DO NEED people that they can’t realistically expect to hire. That signals BIG PROBLEMS ahead.

  • Sylvia Dahlby

    Seriously? How many social media sites does it take to screw in a light bulb? A good recruiter is ALWAYS recruiting and that’s IRL social networks (human communities not the virtual ones) as well as online. Like any media choice, SM needs to target a real live audience. So before you spend hours trolling for candidates among the pretty pictures on Pintrest, make sure that there are actual people there. Social media is not FREE when it takes up valuable time. Invest wisely, and be where your audience is. This is not unique to social media – it

  • Sylvia Dahlby

    sorry, continued… it’s like job boards isn’t it? there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions counting the one on your own web site. You choose your job boards (free or paid) based on the audience; social media is no different than any other media choice/s.

    I’d also like to note that social NETWORKING transcends all media, nothing beats a referral and isn’t that the whole point of building relationships? All the tools in the world won’t make you a better recruiter if you don’t know how to add value to a relationship. A bigger toolkit is not necessarily better, and it’s more important to choose the right tool for the job – sometimes a hammer will do better than a nail gun.

  • Sylvia Dahlby

    and one more thing: Social Recruiting the Multimedia Way http://www.asa-digital.net/amstaffingassoc/20130506#pg33 “in fact, new research suggests social media may not always be the best way to reach talented prospects, including those under the age of 35…” Can I get an amen?

  • Sylvia Dahlby

    PS – on the other hand, it’s a good idea to get creative with social media, as long as you’re ON TARGET -check out Hiring with Social: A Success Story http://www.recruiter.com/i/hiring-with-social-a-success-story/

  • Keith Halperin

    @ Sylvia: the real intent isn’t to actually hire good people quickly and affordably through SM, it’s to make lots of money off recruiters’ bosses convincing them that they CAN…
    It’s like the original ’49s- you don’t make money looking for gold, you make money off the people who ARE looking for gold: selling them secret maps to rich claims, special tools to get more out of the claims, etc.

    Cheers,

    Keith “Native Californian” Halperin