Talk:CareerBuilder

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Start‑class

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Discussion

Probably notable enough, but reads like a press release. --Nagle 18:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put the "advert" template and the www stub on the page to alert folks.--Msr69er 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about some history on the site? Who founded it? Have any books or magazine articles talked about CareerBuilder? We should not have to rely on just the company's information for this article, but rather two or three third-party sources.--Msr69er 20:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to rewrite it a bit. I don't know anything more about the site to add. Can we have CareerBuilder.com point to this article as well? Currently it doesn't. 71.116.241.123 01:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added info about MS. -- Current CB Employee. 18:23, 15 May 2007

Impartiality?

Doesn't seem very impartial. Sounds like someone from the CareerBuilder marketing department wrote this!

I totally agree, which is why I have tagged it.--Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 20:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, has anyone ever gotten a job form careerbuilder? --Sfiga (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal experince with this site is that it shares email and other personal information to spammers and con-artists. It also won't let me delete my account. This article on consumeraffairs.com indicates my experience is not isolated:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/05/career_building_scam.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.180.228 (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They can't both be #1

Both the Monster and the Career Builder pages claim to be the biggest job sites. Either one's wrong, or they've done some clever spin that shouldn't be in Wikipedia anyways. Brendinooo (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Monster is bigger by any measure - and the numbers cited in both entries bear this out. Could someone correct this? 64.242.9.98 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charging for resumes

CareerBuilder does NOT (as this article currently says) charge job seekers for uploading resumes. But they have started to offer paid products related to resumes, including having a resume "expert" help you and buying small "icons" that supposedly help companies notice your resume. 66.251.234.26 (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Add Campaigns'

Is it not spelt with one 'd'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.46.230 (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CareerBuilder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110418063012/http://www.businessweek.com/careers/bplc/2007/91.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/careers/bplc/2007/91.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up using AutoEd

Hi! I've applied a basic editing script to this article, which should have gone through and tweaked any little formatting errors. I believe the next step should be addressing advertising language, and bringing the article more in line with neutrality. Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]