• http://twitter.com/willstaney Will Staney

    This is definitely a post of “who” they tweet rather than “what” they tweet….no?

  • Todd Raphael

    Hi – I consider a publication to be a “what” and not a “who.”

  • http://www.blogging4jobs.com Jessica MillerMerrell

    Sometimes a publication is a who as well as a pub. I’m both but that’s the exception to the rule.

  • Andrei Averkin

    More important is to know what/how/when your candidates are tweeting 🙂

    Andrei (bondiz.com)

  • http://www.HRmarketer.com Mark Willaman


    Love the intent but I’m not sure what to make of this report. It reads more like another HR “influencer” list (the usual names) than anything of practical value to someone in a recruiting position. Most of the people listed in the charts above are not recruiters. And who exactly were the “557 U.S. recruiters” analyzed? Is that a representative sample considering there are hundreds of thousands of active recruiters in the USA? And how much can we learn by only analyzing the 140 characters in their Tweets for 3 months? What about the types of jobs they are trying to fill via Twitter? The engagement of these Tweets? The topics they are most interested in? What “recruiters” are most most “mentioned”? And why only Twitter? What about FB or LinkedIn? These are legitimate questions considering the technology and social software exists to answer them. No doubt the lists above are made up of respectable influencers and media outlets in the HR space but the data raises more questions than answers if we are to understand how this information benefits recruiters and those in the recruiting industry.

  • Todd Raphael

    All good questions and points Mark. It’s just Twitter, and doesn’t measure engagement (though other measures of that are out there, like for companies, Maximum’s Social Recruitment Monitor). A recruiter could be perfectly successful – and many of course are – with no mentions on Twitter, and no use of Twitter for that matter. So this is not meant to be a list of who is influential or important — it’s a snapshot of what people and what publications recruiters are tweeting about. It’s not a value judgment.

  • http://www.HRmarketer.com Mark Willaman

    I guess that’s my point Todd. I don’t think analyzing the 140 characters in the Tweets of 500 “recruiters” (assuming they are recruiters because I can’t tell) for three months in the summer gives you anything close to an accurate snapshot of the people and publications real recruiters are tweeting about. If you feel otherwise, we’ll agree to disagree 🙂