Talk:Job hunting

"Job Search Engines"??

This is an out of date term, as described in its section and on the Job hunting page. In the past, the terms in common use were "job boards" and "resume boards" but now, since most employment-related Web sites offer both capabilities, a more appropriate term is "job sites" or something similar. Interestingly, over the past couple of years, we've had a new class of employment-related site appear, which may fulfill that name more accurately. These sites "aggregate" job postings from other sites and then link back to the original postings for viewing and application - those would be more appropriately called "job search engines." In the U.S., Indeed.com and SimplyHired.com are 2 examples.

I thought that I saw this point raised last month. It's still very valid, and should be addressed. I'm new at this, so I don't know exactly how to do it, and how to do it acceptably.

-- SJoyce 151.199.45.81 16:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Note the Wikipedia "Job Search Engine" link is now redirected to "Employment website" which kinda/sorta talks about the difference between job boards and job aggregators (as mentioned above) without actually using the term "job aggregator" which it should. Do a Google search on "job aggregator" and you find everything but Wikipedia!

So I updated this page to change from "Job Search Engine" to "Employment website.

"Job aggregator" is NOT a new term! The # 1 aggregator, Indeed.com, is the # 1 job-search-related site on the web according to Compete and Alexa, but it's not mentioned here. And it should be!

JobSearchPro (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Your vandalism of Job hunting on 13 December 2006

This message was posted on my personal talk page by JRSpriggs Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JRSpriggs 10:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr JRSpringgs,

(Note I've added some extra stuff here not on the talk page)

I understand you may think that my edition is vandalism as you have little or no experience in apply for or screening job applicants. I have read the vandalism section and feel that I have not vandalized the page as I you have described. I may have described the job hunting process from the hunters to the extreme job hunter, but I balanced it with the extremes that some employers do to job hunters. You have obviously no experience in countries outside of your own. So know little of the back room dealings and criminal elements that can influence a decision. You have not read widely or have a worldly experience working in war zone.

I have aimed to make a balanced article covering the point of view of both the employer and employee. Also there is the consideration of the international nature of job seeking. Just because there are laws for example in Australia and the US those laws are not available to everybody else. Job seeking can be dangerous, can cost you money..

It is easy to leave things alone and simply revert an edit to an old edit, it is simply censorship in the extreme, it isn't even balanced.

I should also note that you haven't even given me a chance to develop the article, given it was an article that needed expansion and was marked to do so. you could of edited it, but no you just gave reverted back to a weak article with little or no content.

You could of for example said this bit is a little extreme and deleted the section and mentioned it in the talk section.

I have decided to immediately withdraw from Job hunting article by not adding any contents. Which is very sad because you others could have learn't about the various screening techniques that employers/agencies use, the mental process people under pressure do etc.

Regards,

--Joewski 11:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

International Job hunting/seeking

In keeping with the worldwide encyclopedic nature of wikipedia would it be an idea to talk more about job seeking in different nationalities? I'd quite like an article of this nature to become a good article someday.

Of course, i could help if need be. Thegreatestuserever 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on this page

I'm reading a source, and writing referenced non-how-to material (view/talk) for this article. This reading and writing will probably take me a couple of weeks.--Chuck (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I finished my research and writing for this article, added the material to this article and deleted the sandbox in which I was writing. I nominated this article for "Did You Know" to get the attention of experts. I apologize for not keeping more of the unsourced wording, but I was too tired of the subject to merge in more detail.--Chuck Marean 20:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Expanded article

I did this edit (here). I hope you all like it.--Chuck Marean 23:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are major problems with this. First of all, it is massively overlinked; it's full of useless links to terms like "thankful" and "time", which do nothing to help the reader and just make an ugly sea of blue. On top of that, the way the article is taken entirely from one source makes me worry about plagiarism issues, since it is likely that you have simply copied the overall structure/outline of that source and reproduced it here. Finally, much of it is how-to, like "what you can do to improve your application". I had half a mind to revert this entire edit, but I will at least open it up to discussion for now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What I wrote is in my words, so there are no plagiarism issues, including the table. "Structue/outline" has nothing to do with plagiarism (I'v read articles on copyright), and it is somewhat different expecially in the "interview" section. Nothing of what I wrote has stuff about "what you can do to improve your application" as far as I know. It mentions application forms exist, but does not get into filling them out. What I wrote describes what the source claims job searching is. How-to articles are like in Ehow and Wikihow. As I wrote, I made sure it was not a how-to article, since it is intended for Wikipedia and not Wikibooks. Over time, this article might get more sources. The only source I have is the booklet I read. It's title sounds like it follows the book I mentioned in "further reading" The article now has a source which is more than it did before my edit. --Chuck Marean 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Very bad article

As it stands now this article is very bad. The main reason is that it reads like a how-to guide. [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. There are plenty of different opinions on job hunting, and it is not our place to tell people how to do it. Also all the references are from a single source, which means that it looks very like promotion for this source. The best that can be said is that it represents but a single viewpoint. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Things that should be included in an article on job hunting include:

• A history of job hunting
• job hunting in various fields
• job hunting in different parts of the world
• Theories about job hunting
• A survey of different approaches to job hunting

It may be necessary to strip out most of the contents of this article and start again. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. What I wrote is nothing like a how-to. It does not give instructions or advice. I made sure of that. If you want to see what a how-to is like, see Wikihow or Ehow.--Chuck Marean 19:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, DJ Clayworth is correct. As it currently stands, this article is not written appropriately for an encyclopedia. I have restored the tags, but unfortunately do not have the significant amount of time it would take to fix the text. — Satori Son 20:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just got done writing it, so I see nothing inappropriate or how-to about it, and I'm very tired of the subject so I'm can't work on it either. I'm not telling you to get a job, if that's what you think. I got a booklet in the mail on the subject and I noticed this article had no references, so I decided to read the booklet and take notes for the purpose of helping out this project. I bet I could have been paid ten dollars by a magazine for what I wrote, even though it took so long, so I consider it a contribution. I've read Ehow and Wikihow so I know the difference between a factual article and advice. When I wrote, I made sure it was not a how-to. --Chuck Marean 20:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with DJ and Satori - the recent additions by Chuck are unencyclopedic and do not improve this article per WP:NOTHOWTO, etc. It all should be reverted. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Judging by the comments made here so far, I am leaning more than ever towards reverting this article before Chuck's additions. Chuck, I appreciate the amount of work you have put into this, but quite frankly it is simply not good, and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Given that you have put so much time into developing it, the best thing for you to do is to take it to an alternative outlet, such as knol or another wiki. In the meantime, there seems to be agreement (among every editor other than you)　that the additions have not been beneficial. Unless I see a major change in the next 24 hours or so, I will revert the whole thing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically the article is phrased so it does not say do this but in practice the result is the same. It describes an idealised process - i.e. what the job hunter should make happen, not what might happen. For example: "A résumé is concise — one or two pages long — and has the stantard résumé format". That does not describe what a resume is like, it describes what a good one should be like, if the writers advice is taken.

The other big issue is that almost the entire article describes the (idealised) process of looking for an average middle-ranking job in a Western country. The process is very different in other countries; it is different for many jobs in Western countries. For example a university professor who submitted a two page resume wouldn't even get past the first round. Job hunting for a CEO position is very different; so is that for a lawyer, or an actor, or a musician. I strongly concur with reverting back to before the recent edits. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The how-to and one-source issues are obvious. I'd give it a few days. No need to hurry. Chuck is making a real effort here, and no need discouraging him by not allowing him time and explaining patiently what the problem is about. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Chuck has been down this path numerous times; lots of good faith, but rarely do any of his contributions remain unreverted. Sigh.... --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In some sense, unemployment is by nature a Western phenomenon. In countries where 95% of the population is engaged in subsistence agriculture, it is hard to say that unemployment can exist. Every person in the village can help work the fields, so there isn't really unemployment per se. If the crops fail, some in the village will starve to death, but this is a somewhat different phenomenon from unemployment. The Wikipedia article on unemployment says as much. So for internal consistency, I think it is quite natural that this article is somewhat Western biased. It is economic development and the specialization of labor which gives rise to the phenomenon of unemployment. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverted

It´s been two days since my ultimatum and I see no increase in support for Chuck´s edits, and no evidence that Chuck is working on cleaning up the content. Therefore, I have reverted the additions. --rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Primary Importance of Networking

I think that as this article develops, it should strongly emphasize the primary importance of networking in job search. Even now, the article says that at least 60% of jobs are found through networking. And yet, networking is not listed at the top as the #1 job search technique. (Any objections to changing this?) For sourcing on the primary importance of networking, I would recommend the books by Orville Pierson and also the AIM manuals that are put out by Lee Hecht Harrison. I think there are also some sources whose research indicates that in a recession, the percentage of jobs found through networking jumps to as high as 80%. --Westwind273 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst not disagreeing with the advantages of networking, as the majority of jobs available are not in the senior management/ professional / technical etc disciplines but are un-skilled / clerical / operative etc roles does networking rank as so high in importance? If one includes 'word of mouth' as a form of networking all be it not proactive networking but more likely chance encounter, this may be the case but it elevation to #1 would depend on finding a good source or two proving this. Interested to see what you can come up with.Tmol42 (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time to dig into this now, so I'm just trying to make a few suggestions on this talk page. On the one hand, I think the studies that have been done do show that a very large percentage of jobs are found through networking. But on the other hand, I think there has actually been a dearth of research in this important area. I think the research community may self-correct on this in the near future, and there may be an upcoming wave of high-quality research into the effectiveness of various job search methods. My sense is that this wave of quality research will show that job seekers spend far too much time responding to online ads, and not enough time networking. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I moved networking to the first spot on the list of common job search methods. From a style point of view, since networking is by far the most common way that people find jobs, it seems best to have it be first on the list. --Westwind273 (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I made some edits to this page to hopefully clarify things and add useful information.

Many references are made to networking as being THE method for 80% of people to land jobs, and in my own informal research, that SEEMS to be true. However, the most recent academic study on the topic that found the 80% number is from the mid-1970's and hardly seems relevant today. The US Department of Labor says "networking is the successful method 50% or more" of the time, and they admit that's an estimate. I made that edit today since the link to Jobsearch.about.com was a generic networking link.

I added another section for "Online reputation management" because it is currently an underestimated - but extremely important - aspect of job search today, as several studies from JobVite and Microsoft have shown in the last 18 months. Microsoft unfortunately removed their study from their website in January, 2011, but I had saved a copy which I put on my website and shared in that section. I've asked Microsoft to put the study back up on their website, but haven't found it there, yet, and they didn't seem to know what I was requesting. When/if they do make it available again, the link to my site in that section should be replaced with the Microsoft link, obviously. It is an international study - the USA and Europe - so would seem both relevant and extremely useful. I hope this addition stays since it is very important to current job search success.

I think the current "50% or higher" wording in the article is far too conservative. Here are some recent links (not from the 70's) that say the actual number is more like 80% or 85%.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-survey-reveals-85-all-jobs-filled-via-networking-lou-adler/ https://www.payscale.com/career-news/2017/04/many-jobs-found-networking http://www.businessinsider.com/at-least-70-of-jobs-are-not-even-listed-heres-how-to-up-your-chances-of-getting-a-great-new-gig-2017-4 https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/outside-voices-careers/2014/09/17/dont-believe-these-8-job-search-myths --Westwind273 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Networking cite

Since the 2011 JobVite study is focused on social networking and social media, that's where I placed the link to their study. --JobSearchPro (talk • 19:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit reverted did not touch the JobVite citation but restored a cite you had removed without explanation.Tmol42 (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Job search engine vs Employment website

The link to Wikipedia's entry for "job search engine" redirects to the more appropriate term "employment website" so I changed the link to Wikipedia's Employment website page in this entry. It was reverted back to "job search engine." Do not understand why. The term "job search engine" is not useful or used, even inside Wikipedia. Help me understand why that change was obliterated.

JobSearchPro (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently someone had meant to revert a different edit before yours, and accidentally also reverted yours in the process. I've restored it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Further reading

• Parsons, Frank (1909). Choosing a vocation. London: Gay and Hancock. p. 188.
• Bolles, Richard N.; Figler, Howard (2007) [1999], "A History of Ideas and Events in the Job-Hunting Field during the Twentieth Century", The Career Counselor's Handbook (2nd ed.), Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press, pp. 46–79, ISBN 978-1-58008-870-1 {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Gordon, Matt M. (2009). Job Hunting 101: The Ultimate Guide to Landing Your First Job Out Of School. Minneapolis, MN: Two Harbors Press. p. 182. ISBN 978-1-936198-04-7.
• Knaus, Bill; Klarreich, Sam; Grieger, Russell; Knaus, Nancy (2010). Fearless Job Hunting: Powerful Psychological Strategies for Getting the Job You Want. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications. p. 216. ISBN 978-1-57224-834-2.

I enlarged the largest section

Hope it will find its readers and critics. Viooletta (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)