Job Search Engine Guide

Prediction – Indeed will nip at the heels of HotJobs in 2007

   

2007 is the year that vertical job search leader Indeed moves into 4^th place and threatens an asleep-at-the-switch HotJobs.

   

Here’s what we know about Indeed:

   

-          Indeed is currently 8^th in the employment category (based on Hitwise data) with a market share of 1.89%, virtually tied with America’s Job Bank (in 7^th at 1.90%, but scheduled to cease operation this summer);

    

-          Indeed saw its market share increase by 302% during 2006 (based on Hitwise data); and,

   

-          Indeed was recently recognized as the ‘Best Job Search Engine’ by job-hunt.org.

   

   

Here’s what we know about HotJobs:

   

-          HotJobs is currently 3^rd in the employment category with a market share of 5.33% (based on Hitwise data);

   

-          HotJobs saw visits drop by 18.4% during the past six months (based on Hitwise data); and,

   

-          Five years ago, prior to merging with Yahoo!, HotJobs was the number one career site (according to Media Metrix), with an 8.6% market share.

   

   

Projections for 2007:

   

-          Indeed’s market share will increase by approximately 120% … down from a 300% gain in 2006 … resulting in a year-end market share of 4.1%;

   

-          HotJobs market share will decline by 20%, resulting in a year-end market share of 4.3%;

   

-          Monster and My Monster will continue to lose share to niche and vertical sites; and,

   

-          Indeed will be preparing to bust into the ‘big three’ during early 2008; or positioning for a buyout.  Either way, 2007 will be an exciting year for Indeed.

   

Trusted Sources and Search Relevance

   

Chad Sowash, VP of Business Development at DirectEmployers, asks a great question:

   

“Why are original jobs and duplicate jobs, found on job search engines, treated in the same manner when it comes to relevancy?”

   

   

Does the source really matter when considering relevance?  After all, wouldn’t we normally consider duplicate products from two different sources to be equivalent?  If not, then I’d posit that the perceived difference (aside from price) isn’t in the product itself, but rather in the additional services and brand image of the suppliers. Bottom line, we trust some sources more than others.

   

So I think Chad is proposing that ‘trust’ be a part of the relevance calculation when he suggests that “Jobs originating and residing on corporate career sites should be weighted with more relevance than duplicate postings pulled from one or many other sources.”

   

Makes sense to me in most cases … and of course it makes sense to Google … their PageRank system gives additional weight to trusted sources when calculating relevance.  But Chad, there are a few problems:

    

First, not every ‘employer’ can be trusted.  Some ‘employers’ have scam sites phishing for personal information, while others are advertising ‘business opportunities’ that require upfront investment on the part of the jobseeker.  Sites like CareerBuilder, Monster and Dice work to weed out ads from these bogus ‘employers’ … so I think it’s fair to say that the big boards have a higher trust rating in these cases.  DirectEmployers and JobCentral don’t have to deal with this problem because the initial membership fee encourages bogus ‘employers’ to go elsewhere. 

   

Second, relevance, or at least position in the result set, is for sale on most job boards.  Let’s assume for a minute that an employer places identical information on their corporate career site, CareerBuilder, Monster and Dice, and then a vertical job search site spiders the ad from all four locations.   I’d consider all four sites trusted sources; and while it may be true that the corporate site has the highest trust rating, what if CareerBuilder was willing to pay the vertical job site to list their ad first, with the other three sources listed behind a link called ‘other sources’?  Are the results less relevant to the jobseeker?  That would hard to argue, and even if true the vertical sites are not betraying any party in doing so and they have every right to generate revenue from facilitating the connection between advertiser and jobseeker.

   

Third, does ‘freshness’ matter when determining relevance?  If an employer places the same ad every Monday, to ensure that their ad stays near the top of the list when searching by date (and so jobseekers don’t assume the opening is ‘stale’ and closed), are any of these duplicates less relevant?  It depends doesn’t it on the user … one user may want to see only the most current opening, while another may want to know that the firm is repeatedly advertising for the same position, perhaps implying high turnover.

   

So, what makes it so difficult for all of us to agree on a standard formula for relevance is that Relevance has Multiple Perspectives ... One for Each Customer:

   

“Our goals and skills are unique, so when we ‘search’, our perspectives on relevance are also unique.  However, and this is key, as a user, my perspective counts; the perspective of the job board does not.  The challenge for every job board is learning how to provide search results that meet the ‘relevance’ criteria for each and every unique user that falls within the job boards target audience.”

   

Indeed and JobCentral Recognized by Job-Hunt.org

   

Two of my favorite job boards have been recognized by Job-Hunt.org as ‘best performers’ for jobseekers during 2006.

   

Indeed.com was selected as Best Job Search Engine

   

and,

   

JobCentral was selected as Best General Job Site

   

Congratulations Indeed and JobCentral – the recognition is well deserved!

   

New Monster Home Page – Same Old Monster

   

Effective today, Monster has a new look; and to my eye, it’s a winner … a much improved visual design.

   

But a new coat of paint doesn’t make a silk purse out of an old dog – hmmm, perhaps I’ve been reading too much Dilbert.

   

First, the search box real estate seems overwhelmed by the branding and sales real estate.

   

Second, Monster retains archaic drop-down boxes for ‘Categories’ and ‘Job Location’.  That’s really lame.  The industry standard these days is one or two search boxes for keywords and location; with the underlying application interpreting the user input and providing filters for subsequent refinement. 

   

Third, interstitial ads still separate users from the content they seek … imagine if Google forced us to view full-page ads before returning search results?  Would Google still be number one?  I’d bet against it.

   

And finally, the search results are terrible.  The screen capture at right shows the search results for Auto Sales in Boston, MA … supposedly in relevance order.   I say supposedly because not a single result is relevant.

   

The same search on Indeed.com returns four relevant jobs in the top five ads … that’s relevance that users can see.

   

Sorry Monster, I like your new duds, but your act is wearing thin.  With your resources, you could be the best in the business.  Why do you settle for less? 

   

Remember, today’s the day.

   

Job Search Agents – Is that a 6 or a 9?

   

You’ve probably seen it … the Subway commercial showing a woman buying a one-size-fits-all meal.  At first she orders a number ‘6’, but then changes her mind and asks for a ‘9’.  No problem says the smiling clerk, as he spins the box around. 

   

I swear the same clerk moonlights at the job boards.

   

Six months ago I posted about the irrelevance of job search agents … I said I was disgusted … little has changed.

   

Almost every day for the past six months I’ve received emails from CareerBuilder and Jobster with “new jobs matching auto sales in Boston, MA” (my test criteria). I’d stopped looking at the emails because the ‘matching’ jobs were usually anything but.

   

But it’s a new year, and thoughts turn to new opportunities.  Could it be that job search agents have improved?  Could it be that there are real opportunities that match my simple criteria?

   

Uh, no … it appears not.  The screen captures at right (click the images for larger versions) show the results are wholly irrelevant.

   

I’m guessing (and would love real numbers if anyone has them) that 10% of workers are active jobseekers, while another 20% are semi-active … occasionally checking a job board, but more likely relying on job search agents … with the remaining 70% of workers completely oblivious to job opportunities unless personally contacted by trusted individuals. 

   

If true, consider the implications for advertisers … the cost per qualified impression could be cut by two-thirds if job search agents delivered relevant opportunities to semi-active jobseekers.  And since advertising spending follows normal supply-and-demand principles, it seems clear that overall spending would increase if cost per qualified impression decreased.

   

Why job boards continue to ignore the opportunity to increase revenue (and customer satisfaction) is beyond me.  And unfortunately, employers and jobseekers are paying the price for their inattention.