This was last year’s Epiphany.

What led to the new epiphany was my pontificating on CRM systems.  This was a recruiter-centric talk about the future of recruiting.  Many recruiter CRMs have connections to LinkedIn profiles.   Every one of these, that I have seen, has been implemented incorrectly, not due to any fault of the vendors.  In an optimal situation, the data inside the Profile should be mashed up with current CRM data.  Instead, LinkedIn requires usage of their API which brings back a canned LinkedIn profile. This is what I call “social linkage”.

The optimal situation would be a pair of  “social agents”.  While a company may have 1000 company prospects  in their CRM, they may only contact 50 in a given day. One “social agent” would automatically refresh the entire CRM on a longer cycle such as once per quarter.  Another just-in-time social agent would update the CRM just before the outreach process.  Why is this important?  LinkedIn is not a definitive data-source; nothing is.  What happens when you combine Facebook, Google+, Jigsaw (now data.com), Foursquare, twitter and whatever social network Microsoft comes up with?  Are you going to clutter your Salesforce or Microsoft Dynamics interface with 6-8 little snippets, much with redundant information?   This gets ugly fast.  The optimal implementation is to have a social agent retrieve LinkedIn, Data.com, Google+, Facebook, Twitter information.  Next, mash, score, apply analytics to present the information in a way that optimally fits your selling model.

What about Apps?

Enough setup.  First, I’m a huge iOS (iPhone/iPad) fan are there are some simply amazing apps out there.  Same thing for Android.  The iOS & Android AppStore model has really opened up a world of possibilities.  However, there is a problem.  While these Apps do great singular things, they do not communicate with each other.

That is a problem.

I’ll take FourSquare, the social check-in service, as an example.  Right now I’m at the SanFran airport.  When I got here, I had to open FourSquare on my iPhone, search for San Francisco International and check in.

This is why people get check-in burn out.  A check-in service is fun; keep track of your network of friends, compete for points, etc.  It should not be work.  Here is how it should work.

Build a special class of Apps called Agents.  Right now, there are Apps that can “push” notifications and work in the background, but that is limited.  An Agent would be able to interact with other Apps.  Example:  A Foursquare Agent could track my location and push check-ins to me for approval.  Now I don’t want to be checking into every gas station I drive by, so I would need an Agent to control my privacy/whereabouts.  The privacy Agent would screen the check-ins coming from the Foursquare agent.  Check-ins would then be automatic, or prompted for my to confirm, or anything I wanted it to be.

Newsflash: I just pulled up my Foursquare App to get a screenshot of it for this blog.  While I had it open, I saw that a friend of mine, Jenny D. also checked in to SFO.  Since I got sick on notifications popping up from Foursquare, I had notifications turned off (essentially, every app controls this individually, which is poor architecture). Luckily, I saw the notification and I would have the option to say hello if time permitted.  If I had a notifications App, that controlled all notifications from all Apps, I could set it up so when I was traveling, I would get all notifications from people in close proximity.

Setting these types of permissions on every individual App, would be (and is) a nightmare.  The only way to control it is with a master-permissions Agent.  A master permissions agent is called a “Clewd”.  I derived it from the word “include”.   The Clewd will be the agent that forces the world to work on your terms. You choose what to be included into.  Apps will not have the ability to push information in any direction, unless the Clewd agent allows it.

Your own Clewd should be stored on you mobile device.  When Facebook adds another feature, they would not be able to opt you in without asking you saying hello to your Clewd agent on your mobile device.

The Clewd is inevitable.  If you don’t see it yet, you are not overly connected. You have not experience “App-Overload”.  You have not joined the 4th social network, download the iPhone App and then turned off notifications.

The Clewd will control more than just the interactions between Apps.  If you have a business email address, you probably get a mass amounts of newsletters, webinar invites, and product announcements.  The marketing automation system that sends you these emails is the same as an App; *it* controls the permission options. You have no control over options;it forces you into it’s choices.  Example: Opt-in or Opt-out?  I say screw them!  I want to be in total control of how the world interacts with me.

Here are examples of a Clewd and a set of Agents working together with emails.

1. For every incoming invitation to an event, webinar, etc, an agent parses of the date and time as well as the vendor information. Check the Clewd if you have explicitly blocked this vendor, if not, Agent #2 compares to your current Calendar, if you are not open at that time, deletes the email or adds it to your Calendar (as an option), based on your Clewd preferences.

2. For each incoming email, have one agent extract the contact information, agent #2 checks your CRM for *outgoing* emails from you.  The Agent provides the Clewd with credentials  “This email is from someone you have in-turn emailed before” says the Agent.  The Clewd likes that, as you have set it up that way.  Since Agents are very-flexible, you don’t have to be limited to a simple “exact email match”, it can look for anyone at the same company.

3.  Expanding on the previous example:  For all non-recognized emails, don’t show them as they come in. That can be distracting.  Show all non-recognized emails once every two hours in a group; don’t mix them with high-priority ones. Let me delete them as a group. Sorry Google: “Priority Inbox” was poorly implemented.  Take this idea: please.

There are 1000′s of potential uses of a Clewd.  What happens when the RFID label on the bottle of water you just bought communicates with your Ford Focus computer, which then tells the Billboard you are approaching on the hi-way that you have driven 200 miles and 4 hours since your last bottle of water.  It then shows you a ice-cold-water ad, just turn into the oncoming exit.  This is the world we are headed for unless the permissions rest with the individual.   Watch the movie Minority Report. With Mobile outselling PC’s, the majority of future interactions with technology will happen on your mobile device.  Apple and Google can be leaders here.  Agents that interact between Apps will be a prerequisite.

Where is the Clewd to be stored?  This all-important set of rules that defines how the technology world will interact with you?  Ask yourself: Do you want Facebook or LinkedIn to control it?  They would love that.  My ultimate prediction is one of two places.  My first preference is stored, securely on my mobile device. Secondly is a 3rd party service, secure, where you pay $20 a year to have them manage your world-rules, your Clewd. This service provider cannot have a conflict of interest; it cannot generate revenue via ads.  No Facebook, Google, etc.  It may be a new business model.

The future must be permission-based and we each must control our own permissions. If we don’t it will be a world where conversations stop and everything is pushing and yelling trying to out-do each other.

Will the AppStore turn into the AgentStore?  Probably not, but in the future, it will be the Agents, not that Apps that have unique value.  What would you pay for an Agent that made all email communication obey your rules?  I would drop $100 in a heartbeat.  What is an email App worth… $1.00?

I’ll continue thoughts on this topic as I have them.  The question next is how to force those pushing content to obey the rules of the Clewd.

Note:  At this point I am not sure if a Clewd is singular or Plural, meaning one Clewd contains all your rules or each rule is a Clewd…I’m leaning towards one-contains-all.

LinkedIn is not a social network.

A thing is defined by it’s major attribute.  While LinkedIn has aspects of a social network, it is actually a social database.

Hey Donato…But they say they are a social network!

In the early days they were.  As the network grew, savvy users realized they needed to grow their networks as large as possible to spread their reach.  In polls done over the last year in live webinars, I’ve asked groups ranging from 200-600 how they use LinkedIn.  Here are the questions and the responses.

1.  I get as many connections as possible and figure out how to contact people directly.

2. I use LinkedIn to as it was meant.  Connect with people through a series of connections.

3.  I don’t use LinkedIn.

69% of people choose option 1. Last year, it was only 50%. The trend is growing and…

LinkedIn is a social database.

That is how the majority of people are using it.  Social database.  Why does this matter?  It is about methodology. First, I will admit, in some cases, an introduction is the only way to get to a high level contact.  Admittedly…this is one way how I use LinkedIn.  However, connecting through a chain of 3 people is too slow. Painful. Sales and especially recruiting cannot work at those speeds.  If they guy at the second place in the chain of connections is on vacation, kiss your placement goodbye.  Another recruiter that goes direct is going to eat your lunch.  Sales is much the same.

LinkedIn promotes bad outreach methods.

Have you ever received a canned message from LinkedIn member that starts with  “Because you are a person I trust…”.   When I am in a particular mood, I will reply to those messages with “Send me $50 please…if you trust me”.   Sometimes this will get a laugh and people will realize how bad their outreach was.  Sometimes, I never hear from them again.  As yet… none of these trusted connections has sent me cash.

Bad outreach is easily cured. Remove the canned invites and force people to actually write a real reason of why they want to connect.  Score the text of the message for uniqueness.  This is not hard to do.  Flag messages that were mass mailed.  Give users the ability to automatically remove any messages sent to more than 1, 5, or 10 people. If I see a message that was sent to 50 people, I would delete it.  I have a personal policy to read all 1:1 messages that are sent with a reason.  I sent this suggestion to Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn CEO at the time and he said “they were working on something like that”.   Based on the amount of unsolicited LinkedIn spam I get…bullshit!

LinkedIn makes money on quantity, not quality

The actions of LinkedIn show that they want to make it as easy as possible for you to connect to as many people as possible.  They know that they have a tremendously valuable social database.   This is good business sense.

LinkedIn: are you reading?  Recently on the focus.com site, my answer about the worst thing on LinkedIn got the most votes.  Everyone hates the canned invites.  Here is the link:  http://www.focus.com/questions/if-you-could-change-1-think-about-linkedin-what-would-it-be/

The quality of LinkedIn will continue to drop over time.  Unless some major changes occur to (1) stop the LinkedIn spam (2) Force quality outreach (3) Give users more control on what is sent to them   …  LinkedIn will experience the exodus.

The LinkedIn Exodus

The future of the web and of technological interaction must be permission based.  Today,  LinkedIn is mob-based-permissions.  Many of the recruiters and sales people I sell to on a regular basis are part of 50+ social networks and groups.  They are being bombarded with outreach, unsolicited from members of those networks.  Eventually, I predict, vendors such as Facebook and LinkedIn will continue to (1) Follow the money (2) Abuse users best interests and then (3) lose those users.   It will be interesting what Google+ ends up looking like.  At some point, users will take back control and all interactions with networks will be on the users terms.  A centralized (maybe mobile) set of permissions that *dictates* to the outside world how the network may interact with the user.  This will happen.

Positioned for permissions.

Which company is going to step up and have some vision?  Give the user total control over what and how often they receive any type of outreach.  It is against LinkedIn’s and Facebook’s short term financial missions.  Maybe Google?  Google does not have to make money on their social network.  That may be one of the key pieces of building a permissions technology.  If money is involved, if the need to sidestep privacy in the name of profit is anywhere in the equation… it won’t work.

Examples of permissions:

Facebook: Block all Apps from Posting on my wall.  I will accept any personal wall post, but darn it, I don’t want to join F*&@ing Branch out.

LinkedIn: Block any messages that are sent to more than one person.  Again: personally I like personalized messages and respond if I can.

LinkedIn Groups: No, because I joined a group, you cannot add me to your widget mailing list.  I must request it and you cannot prompt me.

Google+: Stop notifying me that someone added me to a circle….. score one for Google… they actually just did this!

Social Agents: Yes, my wife’s iPhone can check my iPhone’s calendar and meetings scheduled.

Newsletters: Only accept 1 newsletter per quarter from my financial advisor.

Email: If the person is not in my email history,  mark as low priority (this I already do)

Excessive?  You won’t think that when the RFID label on a bottle of water you just bought sends your iPhone and advertisement.  In a technologically explosive world, permissions that we control will be required to keep our sanity.

A permissions foundation?

What if an independent foundation was created by the major players out there?   Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Apple and …LinkedIn.  Mission: to create a portable technology that is tied to an individual.  It includes all the rules of how the world may interact with that individual.  The “profile” is portable and exclusively owned and controlled by the individual.  Profit could be made by companies that have a better mousetrap for managing those profiles.

Time to get disrupted.

The permissions technology/widget/APP would lead to other interesting side effects.  As it is a few years away, it will coincide with very fast mobile processors.  Good bye Facebook.  Reality: no one trusts Facebook with privacy.  Give people an alternative social network, with permission you absolutely control, that you carry on your hip on your iPhone or Android… why would you want Facebook?

Social Networking evolves:  Mobile Peer to Peer

How will Facebook stop this?  They can’t.  It is inevitable.  Every major technology starts centralized and then moves to distributed as the technology is democratized.   Create a news alert on social networks and violations of user trust.  You will see the trend.  10 years ago…how many people in the world could develop an app for a mobile phone and distribute it in days to millions of people?  Not many.  Today it can be done by an industrious child.

Mobile Peer-Peer social networking will look nearly like Facebook or Google+.  The only difference is that all the data is stored on your iPhone/Android/Device.  New picture of the kids?  … it automatically connects to all your friends devices and uploads the pictures…based on permissions.  Think of it as a group DropBox for pictures, status, check-in’s,  etc.

What needs to happen for Mobile Peer to Peer

Mobile phone processors need to have about a 2X improvement in processor and battery life.  The iPad2 is there today.  In a recent live talk, I demonstrated my iPhone acting as a mobile web server.  It was a bit slow, but the point was understood. Ten years from now, mobile phones will be hosting full blown websites.  Peer-peer social networking will be childsplay  comparatively.

Entrepreneurial opportunity

Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Yahoo, Microsoft want to control your data, your friends and record your interactions.  What you do & say, who your friends are, etc.  They want to know, save it and use it.  It’s good business.  Chances are they won’t invest in something that takes control away from them.  This is the perfect recipe for disruption.  Pick the right time, build it and monetize.

Twitter:  idonato
LinkedIn:  http://linkedin.com/in/donatodiorio
Google+:  http://gplus.to/donato
Facebook:  Friends & family only  (my permissions)

Unlimited bandwidth.

Ask any of the iPad user that got one in the early days. Unlimited bandwidth is no longer available on the iPad.   I am one of the lucky users. With a combination of my travel schedule,  high Bandwidth using applications like Netflix and Broadlook’s Profiler, I regularly top 12-15 Gigabytes per month in data transfer.  Data plans today cover 2GB which means I am using 6-8 times the bandwidth that new iPad users get.

I am a bandwidth hog.   I am one of the 2% of people that use the majority of the bandwidth and I’ve got a message for AT&T…I’m keeping my plan…forever.

Why blog about this?  It is a warning for the uninformed.

Guess what?  Very soon you will be a bandwidth hog.  AT&T, Verizon and the other carriers understand this.  It is the nature of technology.  More and more applications, business logic and media rests in the cloud.  Now Apple and Google each want to offer streaming music services.  No longer will you have your iTunes on your desktop, laptop or iPad.  Nope.  They want all your music in the cloud.  Why?   Apple gets a piece of the service fee that you pay AT&T for your iPhone or iPad.  Bandwidth is the new electricity.

This is reminiscent of 2002–2008 when every idiot said that you must make your software offering SaaS (Software as a service).  SaaS is mostly good for service providers since it gives them reoccurring revenue, but it is not always the best solution.  Don’t get me wrong, I am huge believer in SaaS, but it is not a panacea.

Now they (the same smart zealots who want your $$)…are saying that they want all your stuff in the cloud.  Why?  Simple, if you store everything : backups, music, CRM, etc in the cloud then you need bandwidth to access it.

Whose cloud?

At the recent Oracle OpenWorld conference, Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle talked about the cloud NOT being a single set of servers but a flexible appliance.  Thank you Larry!  He gets it. Most don’t.

The Flexible Appliance

What is it?  My iPhone is a flexible appliance.  In a recent talk at the MRI Worldwide conference (The Near and far Future of Recruiting), I demonstrated on stage the advent of the mobile web server.  My laptop connected to a website that was hosted on my iPhone and one person in the front row said “that’s cool!” out loud.  Not the response I was hoping for, but it sunk in to enough  people that had time to think about it.  It inspired some great conversations about the future of recruiting.

I used an iPhone app called ServersMan that makes your iPhone a web server.  Being able to run a web server on a mobile phone has huge implications.

If you want to test the vision of a technical leader ask them this question:

When mobile devices (iPhones, iPads) can act as functional web servers, what does that mean for the technology landscape?”

They should be stunned, they should be wondering, they should be smiling.  If they don’t, then they lack vision.  The advent of the true flexible appliance will bring:

-Massive bandwidth usage.  Via your mobile flexible appliance/personal web server, you will be connected to everything

-Downfall of Facebook.  News to Zuck.  The future social networks will be controlled from the pocket.

-movement from “their” cloud to “my” cloud.

When I have proposed the above, among tech folks, they remind me that some sort of middleware needs to facilitate one mobile web server finding and connecting to another.  This already exists, it is called dynamic DNS and their are a bunch of companies that offer this.   With DynamicDNS, my iPhone web server could very quickly connect to 200 of my friends and update my status on their mobile devices.   No cloud, no Facebook needed.   The only limitation is bandwidth and mobile processing speed.

The above scenario will happen once people realize they don’t want Facebook storing everything about them.  Due to the nature of the beast, they will continue to violate the privacy of their users.  Eventually it will go away.  Don’t get me wrong, I like Facebook.  It gives me a way to connect with grandma and show pictures of the kids.  Facebook may change and become the king of the middle, middleware the ties everything consumer together.  But do you trust them?  I don’t.

It’s all about the middleware.

As I look at SaaS (Software as a Service) and then PaaS (Platform as a Service) combined with the advent of the flexible appliance, I realize that my previous thinking was limited.  In the mobile future,  the mobile is the cloud, the flexible appliance.  For consumer apps like Facebook, people will eventually prefer to keep their personal data in a place they control it.  However, for business applications like CRM and ATS (Applicant Tracking), I see a new class of business.  Middleware as a service (MaaS).

Middleware as a service will balance the load between the cloud and the flexible appliance.  Unlike the limited browser-based applications today, MaaS systems will balance the rich interface and local power of flexible appliance with the security, flexible business logic and data storage in the cloud.  It will be interesting to watch it evolve.

With all this stuff in the works… if you get an unlimited bandwidth package, read the contract and if you can, never give it up.  Providers will offer unlimited bandwidth as a promotion and then like AT&T/Apple, try to get you to downgrade from $30 per month to $25 per month to relinquish your unlimited package.

Did I mention that once you get it, never give it up?

Here is the premise:  You get invited to the project and the person that invites you gets points.  They can then create their own link and get points, etc, etc.   In a perfect world, the person with the most influence would yield the most points.  The fun part of the project is a very well done user interface that visually shows you all the people involved.  You can navigate through connections and influence points.

I want to thank John Sumser for creating the post that influenced me to review the Project.

After I clicked on John’s influence link I had a blast reviewing the site and then went back to my work.  Enjoyable experience.

Then the mob took over.

Emails, Twitter direct messages, even a phone call.  People were asking me to use *my* influence to help promote them so they could be near the top of the list.  Influence?  It is no secret that Broadlook, the company that I founded, develops list generation technology.  People wanted “my list”.  One individual even offered to purchase a list on behalf of their chief executive.

If you are reading this and you are one of the people on LinkedIn or Twitter or some other social disaster and you want be at the top of the list, (1) you can’t have my list and (2) think about what Edgar Allan Poe said:

The nose of a mob is its imagination. By this, at any time, it can be quietly led.
-Edgar Allan Poe

In reality, the Fast Company Influence Project will not come near to predicting real influence online.  What it will do is spotlight some people who desperately want to be leading the mob. Guy Kawasaki, while well respected, also seems to want to be at the top of the mob. He talks about it in this article.  I think it would be more fun to pick a person of total obscurity and put them at the top.  Similar to the Search Engine Optimization (SEO) initiative that pointed the search for “Miserable Failure” to George W Bush.

I would welcome human suggestions as to the most influential person online. How about the web master at Google?  What if Google posted a single link on their home page “Vote for Sergey”?

Overall, I am disappointed, it would be nice to have seen a scientific study.  I’m somewhere on that list, but shouldn’t be.  Thanks John ;(

Caveat: My friend, John Sumser did influence me, but did not ask.  Big distinction from the “help me be influential” contingent.

###

More mob quotes

The nineteenth century lynching mob cuts off ears, toes, and fingers, strips off flesh, and distributes portions of the body as souvenirs among the crowd.
Ida B. Wells

The vision that the founding fathers had of rule of law and equality before the law and no one above the law, that is a very viable vision, but instead of that, we have quasi mob rule.
James Bovard

There can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions to an individual, but permitted to a mob.
Ayn Rand

There is no logical reason why the camel of great art should pass through the needle of mob intelligence.
Rebecca West

There is no necessity to separate the monarch from the mob; all authority is equally bad.
Oscar Wilde

There is nothing more foolish, nothing more given to outrage than a useless mob.
Herodotus

We grew up as kids watching those movies and we were exposed to themes of civil rights, unfairness, bigotry and fathers struggling against the kind of mob of the town, so you remember how you felt as a kid being taken seriously, that you are part of the human drama.
Rachel Griffiths

When the theater gates open, a mob pours inside, and it is the poet’s task to turn it into an audience.
Franz Grillparzer

]]> http://www.idonato.com/2010/07/20/fast-company-the-mob-and-influence/feed/ 1 http://www.idonato.com/2010/06/22/what-you-know-about-internet-resume-search-is-wrong/ http://www.idonato.com/2010/06/22/what-you-know-about-internet-resume-search-is-wrong/#comments Wed, 23 Jun 2010 03:08:46 +0000 Donato http://www.idonato.com/?p=362 Do you use search engines to look for resumes on the Internet?   Do you use exclusions such as “-jobs”  or  “-submit”?

If you do. Stop it. Read on and I’ll tell you why.

First a story about Easter hams.

To understand what I am going to say about searching for resumes, you will need to be in the right frame of mind. Here we go…

A little girl was closely watching her mother prepare the Easter Ham. She was five years old, a great age for asking questions about the world.  She watched her mother prepared the glaze, preheated the oven and brought out the large roasting pan.   In an automatic fashion, her mother took a large knife and sliced off 2 full inches of meat from each end of the ham.

The little girl,  Sarah, smiled as a question came to mind.

“Mommy, why do you cut the ends off the ham?”  she asked.

As if startled the mother replied, unconvincingly  “I don’t know Sarah, my mom always did it.  Maybe it is so the glaze gets inside. ”

Not being satisfied with the answer, Sarah tracked down Grandma.

“Grandma” She asked.  “I just saw mommy cut off the two ends of the Easter Ham.  She said that she learned it from you.  Why did you make the Easter Ham that way?”

Grandma answered.  “That is a good question, Sarah, but I learned it from my mom, your great grandma.  I always thought that it was so the Ham cooked faster.”

Again, unsatisfied, Sarah tracked down, Great Grandma, the family Matriarch.

“Great grandma”, She asked as she crawled up on her lap.  “Mommy cut the ends off the Easter Ham. She thought is was so the glaze flavor got into the ham.  She did this because Grandma did it.  Grandma thought it was so the Ham would cook faster.  Grandma learned it from you. ”

With anticipation, Sarah asked her Great Grandma. “Grandma, why did you cut the ends off the Easter Ham?”

Grandma, wise as she was old, chuckled and answered.  “Sarah, when I married your great grandfather, the roasting pan we got for our wedding was too small for a Christmas Ham.”

“We cut the ends off the Ham so it would fit in the pan”.

Such is the progression of knowledge.  There is no fault when we inherit a practical idea that worked in the past, yet is anachronistic.  In the case of the Easter Ham, a practical, real world solution should have lived and died within a single generation, a single iteration.  However, it continued until one with a child’s mind, a questioning mind, wanted to know why.  When she was not satisfied with the answer, went on a journey of discovery.

Looking at resume search with a “Beginners Mind”

In the past 2 year I’ve taken a bit of a journey in questioning how people use search engines to search the Internet.

Observation:  Top Internet searchers, myself included, had an innate set of beliefs that they held.  These observations eventually evolved into The 8 Laws of Internet Search,  which are a set of axioms for searching the Internet.

At this point I want to make a disclaimer:  I am really, really good at finding things on the Internet. This is not due to any formal training, nor did I have the advantage of a teacher or mentor.  I am self-taught.  I have literally been immersed in searching the Internet for the last 15 years.

Second disclaimer:  I do not include myself as one of the search-string guru’s out there.  To be a search string guru, you need to be current, know the latest websites that are out there, as well as the latest capabilities of each of the search engines; you need to be immersed in the searching.  My immersion is in the underlying rules.

I recently had a conversation with a search string guru .  We agreed that the best analogy was that I design the aircraft and the search string gurus are the pilots.  Works for me.

So what about resumes and searching the Internet?

If I attempted to research the state of resume search, without a basis or set of axioms to work from, I would not have known where to start.  Fortunately, I decided to use the 8 Laws of Internet Search as a starting point. With a special emphasis on the first 3.

So the question I decided to ask myself is: How do the commonly taught practices of resume search stack up to the Laws of Internet Search?  This was a definable goal.   Caveat: My focus is “Open web” resume searches and not searches within a controlled environment like Monster.com or CareerBuilder.com.

The Law of Environment. Trainers do an excellent good job talking about the various search engines, their capabilities and limitations.

Industry score on the Law of Environment: A+

In taking The Law of Permutation into consideration, I found 2 areas that were very different.

1.  Boolean search methods

Sub-score:  B.   Trainers are clear on the concepts that you must search using multiple permutations such as “VP of Sales”, “Vice President of Sales”,  “VP Sales”, etc.  However, the reality is that you may need 15-20 title combinations to reach all possible results.

2.  Semantic search methods

Sub-score: C.  A good deal of mis-information is being spread about semantic search.  Some of this stems from irresponsible vendors that are trying to make a buck.  It would not be a big deal,  if trainers actually tested, scientifically, what they started teaching.  The funny thing is that the value proposition is significant with semantic search.  Say what it can (and can not do) and those vendors will have happy customers with proper expectations.  I shouldn’t be too harsh here, in the early days, I believed the software from Broadlook was meant for everyone.  It is not.  Setting clear expectations of technology capabilities is the mark of a mature vendor.

Semantic search is great when you have a type of resume that is well identified and the rules have been built.  However, throw it a niche area that has not been cataloged and it will fall flat.  Advice:  If you are looking for a commodity position like a .NET programmer, semantic search can work marvels.  If you are working in a niche area, pick a semantic search engine that can be trained by inputting sample resume data.  In the later case, you may have to do the leg work with good old Boolean search first.  Also, ask your semantic search vendor if they use exclusions when they mine search engines.  If they do, twist their arm until they stop.  It’s an old Easter Ham.

Industry score on the Law of Permutation: C+

The Law of Completeness.    Widely taught methodologies, that have not been questioned in years (like the Easter Ham) are yielding approximately 65%.  If you get 65% on a math test, that is not a good grade.   The first example is not using the full available results from a search string query.  If a google search yields 380 results,  the Law of Completeness states that you must work with the entire set of results for maximum yield.

Completeness is not being reached. Why?  When trainers first started teaching how to use search engines (before google),  there were limitations in the technology.  Those limitations were:

(1) No high accuracy method to screen out page results that were NOT a resume.  Therefore search strings needed to be modified to exclude results that were not resumes.

(2) No method to extract all results from a search query.  Therefore search strings needed to be modified to reduce results to a manageable quantity

In both cases, the strategy worked, unfortunately there was a side effect:  Many good results were also thrown out.

Industry score on the Law of Completeness: D

Dropping the bomb on search string exclusions.

So where is the proof, where is the science?

First, I want to thank Cory Dickenson at Broadlook Technologies for leading the team of researchers on search string exclusion metrics.  Looking through tens of thousands of resumes, by hand, and then doing it two more times, is not a fun task.  The reality is that someone had to do it.  Hopefully when this study is reviewed both recruiters and technology vendors will have a better foundation in which to build upon.  I basically hate inefficiency.

Resume Exclusion Metrics (Broadlook project: FRET, Frikken Resume Exclusion Test)

The study was simple.  What was the effect of using exclusions on a resume search string?

The first thing we did for the study was to mine a bunch of social networks and sites that had advice on resume search strings.  We wanted examples, over the past 10 years, that experts were using.  From a few hundred examples, we made a list off all the popular resume search string exclusions that were being used (i.e. -job -job -you -your -submit).

Creating the resume data set

To set up the study, we created search strings for about job 50 positions.  The positions were a wide range: IT , biotechnology, health care, sales, business development, financial, etc.  Next for each search,  we made sure that the search string was specific enough so the results from the search engine was <1000. We did not use any exclusions.  Last step:  Hand verification of every single search engine result.  Each result was classified in one of 4 categories (1) Resume (2) Resume sample page  (3) resume book page (4) Junk: Not a resume.

At this point, we could bring automation into the equation.  Using Broadlook’s Eclipse tool, we automated each of the 50 searches with one of the exclusion terms.  We then repeated the each of the 50 searches with each of the exclusion terms.  Since we already hand-identified which search engine result pages were resumes, we were able to calculate, for each search-exclusion combination, how many REAL resumes were skipped by using each exclusion term. When the searching was done, we had average percentages, across many industries and titles.  We know, with high precision, what percentage of resumes you will lose by using an exclusion term.

Why did I do this study?  Too much time on my hands?..no.  I was interested in making the best open web resume search tool possible.  To accomplish that goal, the tool needs to work within the framework of the Laws of Internet Search.  Specifically the first 3:  Environment, Permutation, Completeness.  The end result was Broadlook Diver 3.0.  The resume search part of the tool *automatically* screens out pages that are not resumes.  In addition, since it is an automation tool, it allows the user to work with complete results from a search engine.   While you can only get Diver from Broadlook, the Resume Exclusion Metrics are free to all.  Enjoy.

The Axioms of Internet Resume Search

1.  Seek <1000 results per search.

You should conduct your search with enough specificity that the search engine reports that there are less than 1000 results.  If you are doing a search that yields many thousands, break up the search into a few separate searches

2.  Never use single-phrase exclusions

Otherwise you will miss a good percentage of resumes.  It is reasonable to use multi-word exclusions, as the level of ambiguity is low.

3.  Use multiple search engines.

There are varying reports of the cross over being as low as 20%.   (Happy to get comments from additional sources on this)

4.  Use automation to screen out non-resumes

Don’t do it by hand and don’t ignore the data below and use exclusions.  This is not 1998 anymore.  Let automation technology screen out Search Engine Result Pages (SERPS) that are not resumes. This includes sample resume pages, job pages, etc.

And now for the Exclusion metrics.

From pool of about 50 job descriptions,  100+ searches,  75,000 search engine results, 28200 resumes, hand verified.  The sort order is based on the worst offending term.  These exclusion terms were pulled from top experts answers on forums about resume search.  Remember the Easter Ham, it is not my intention to reduce the tremendous contribution of those people that freely answer questions (every day) about internet resume search.  It is my intention to give more data so that the entire industry has more facts in which to work with.

This resume research project yielded many other interesting facts, such as percentages of doc files vs. pdf, etc.  In the coming weeks, I will be publishing a white paper that breaks down the data in a bunch of categories… after I get back from DisneyWorld!