2007 Top Sites for Job Search – Indeed Wins Round 1

   

Indeed takes the top spot in round one of the 2007 Top Sites for Job Search competition – not a surprise really since Indeed took overall honors in 2006.

   

In this first round of competition, fifteen of the top general job sites were tested to find jobs for ten hypothetical jobseekers in Tulsa, OK.  To score well, sites needed sufficient ad content for Tulsa, plus they needed search technology that was powerful enough to find matching jobs without returning mismatches. 

   

Surprises in the first round? 

   

Craigslist is the first site to be eliminated from further competition as a result of a last place finish.  I’ve never been a fan of Craigslist (see here, here and here for background), but going in I expected them to finish mid-pack … after all, Craigslist does have a strong following.  In the end, simplistic search technology and limited ad volume in Tulsa were Craig’s undoing.  Yes, the results would have been different if the test location had been San Francisco; but, doesn’t that make Craig’s more like a collection of regional sites as opposed to a national site?  I think so.

   

HotJobs and Monster in the bottom five … ironic that two of the big-three job boards garner so much traffic and yet performed so poorly in this round.   

   

Just-Posted, a site that almost no one has heard of (Alexa traffic rank = 1,559,714) was fifth, leveraging their next-generation search technology to muscle past many of the big guns.

   

Best Job Sites – Round 1 Results

   

1. Indeed
2. SimplyHired
3. GoogleBase
4. Jobster
5. Just-Posted
6. CareerBuilder
7. LiveExpo
8. Oodle
9. Jobs.com
10. JobCentral
11. Monster
12. HotJobs
13. GetTheJob
14. America’s Job Exchange
15. Craigslist   

   

   

So let’s head to the round 2 challenge – finding jobs for ten hypothetical jobseekers in Boston, MA.  May the best job site win.

   

Comments

[Eric Caron]

Could you perhaps share a little more of your criteria and the results? I'd love to be able to see how the lesser-known sites (*cough*me*cough*) compare in your results.

I understand you can't show all the cards in your deck because we/they could tweak the results to give better results, but even 2 or 3 use-cases would help me figure out where I'd place.

Thanks!

[Bob Wilson]

Hi Eric,

Great question ... and I appreciate your understanding that publishing all of the test cases would raise questions about the value of the findings.

But here are three of the cases used in round one:

A search for 'Accountant' job ads within 25 miles of Tulsa, OK (or as close to 25 miles as available by site) posted or updated within the past week (or as close to 7 days as allowed by site). No subcategories were selected as a search criteria or filter, the results were sorted by relevance (if the option is offered), and 'featured ads' were ignored. The total number of ads returned by site were considered, as were duplicates and the accuracy of the top ten results for each search. Points were given for relevant results, and points were subtracted for irrelevant results (ads not matching the intent of the search ... often this is caused by tag spam). In round one, the test was all about the data returned ... no points for usability or features ... they'll be evaluated in later rounds.

2nd case ... same as above for 'network administrator'.

3rd case ... same as above for 'fast food worker'.

Bob :-)