Monster Beta Job Search – Improved but Flawed

   

Monster no longer dominates the U.S. online recruitment market – Career Builder has passed them in revenue, job postings and traffic – but Monster has deep pockets and a dedicated R&D team.   So don’t underestimate the power of a wounded Monster.

   

Innovation is a surefire way to disrupt the status quo; so if Monster can leverage their R&D spending to jump ahead of competitors in the areas of search relevance and user productivity, then perhaps they can reestablish their dominance.

   

Enter the much-improved Monster Beta Job Search.

   

The user interface is clean and flexible, plus it scores well on the use of standard usability principles. Definitely first class.

   

The addition of filters on the left mimics other sites, but it is still a helpful addition. And Monster becomes one of the few sites to offer a filter by occupational category – a key to improved relevance and productivity.

   

Weaknesses remain however:

   

1)       The occupational categories used by Monster are non-standard, poorly defined, and overlapping.  In the example above, there are separate categories for information technology and computers, software – aren’t computers and software part of information technology?  I have no idea what distinguishes one category from the other.  And if I’m confused during the search process, was the employer any less confused when assigning a category?  When will a job site turn to the combination of a proven occupational taxonomy and expert code assignment?

   

2)       Keyword search manipulation is not transparent.  Monster deserves props for going an extra step to help job seekers – when a search string finds no results using the default ‘AND’ operator, Monster reruns the search using the ‘OR’ operator.  They just don’t tell you when they’ve done this.  So in the example above, I’m seeing an ‘Accounts Receivable Clerk’ as the most relevant result for my ‘Ajax Software Guru’ search.  Definitely confusing.

   

3)       Coverage is limited to ads placed on Monster – somewhere under 1 million ads, and probably closer to 500,000. Monster doesn’t publish this metric because it would be hard to reconcile with their advertising claim of providing “access to the largest database of jobs”. So even if Monster does develop the best search engine, they’ll still only be offering access to 20% or less of the online job ads. 

   

An improved search experience is always welcome; and even with the current flaws, Monster’s new beta job search is improved. What I see so far won’t be enough to change their market fundamentals though – they’ll continue to see declining market share for as long as they charge premium prices for less than premium results.    

   

Comments

[Nick Roy]

I think as more people learn about this whole vertical search concept, companies, such as Monster, will have to adapt to it or die.

[Bob Wilson]

Thanks for posting feedback Nick. :-)

Yes, I agree that the vertical search market participants are redefining the electronic job ad market, putting pressure on the big three.

But the big three have huge advertising budgets that will keep them in the dominant position for years to come.

Even so, I'd bet on the young guns.

Bob

[lutao]

maybe designer want display more information in search result list, but I feel it takes too much space, so no space for ads.

seeker cann't save the search as alert or RSS at same page.

beta jobsearch missed Related search feature.

I agree with you jobsearch product need improvement at occupational dictionary.

[Bob Wilson]

Hi Lutao ... thanks for pointing out the limitations that you found.

Bob