Talk:Employment website/Archives/2013

This is an archive of past discussions about Employment website. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Link spam

Please do not add commercial links to this page (or others). To quote the {{spam}} template:

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) — 05:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

simultaneously there needs to be a list of notable employment websites w/ RELEVANT, quantifiable information. ie which is the largest, which holds the most resumes, which gets the most hits etc 65.57.245.11 20:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)TitaniumDreads

Recent Changes

working on improving article with verifiable sources. Startstop123 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Working on research for Broad vs. Niche section Startstop123 (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

New Trends

Startstop123 wrote on my talk page: Hi, I was wondering why you have reverted my edit on the "New Trends" section of the Employment website yet again. I have been building this wiki and have contributed most of the major information to it. Currently, I'm looking for new sources to add to it some more, but are finding them pretty scarce. Specifically, the ultimate goal of the New Trends section is to show how this new model hasn't taken off at all. Neither of these two boards are notable on their own, but the fact that both have been going for almost a year now and neither has dented the business of the major boards is. I think that's important to show that not one, but two companies have tried this "pay the user" model to little avail. That's my conclusion at least and need some third party sources to verify it before I can edit in that conclusion. I do agree that the Broad vs. Niche section was too attractive for link spams, and will leave that off. But please leave the New Trends section as is until I can build up this article further. Startstop123 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless I reverted your change again. From what I can see Applicant Tree registered its sites some time after Notchup did. Seems to me they simply took the idea from Notchup. Notchup site has reached a mentionable visitor ranking. Applicant Tree completely failed. To call it "competing" is ridiculous imho. See Alexa. --WeatherFug (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WeatherFug, I have checked Alexa, and when you compare either site to someone like Career Builder they both have negligible traffic. Even compared to minor job sites they don't rank very high. And that's my point - both seemed to have wanted to reinvigorate the job market, and neither has. After one year in business neither has been able to make a go of this. If only one site fails, that doesn't prove the point that the model isn't sustainable, but if two have, then that's something.Startstop123 (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Notchup managed to now have a traffic rank of 271,860 and a visible reach, which is not bad at all. Applicanttree.com reaching a traffic rank of 25,247,118 in a year's time simply means it totally utterly failed and I cannot see the slightest glimpse of them being competitive, now or in the future. Also, the provided links for Applicant Tree are only their own press releases. Notchup at least got some real articles about them. However, you got a point considering sustainability. I think it would be best to remove the whole section and perhaps reconsider the subject in a few years. --WeatherFug (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I'll wait until I can get some sources on the issue.Startstop123 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Employer review website

I suggest we merge Employer review website into this article, as alone it will be little more than a stub. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by an Administrator of the Employer Review Website entry

Hi, The employer review website page was short (a stub), but pretty good. It had two mentions of employer review websites - EmployAdvisor and GlassDoor - and a reference source. (It had no external ‘promotional’ type links to any sites). Administrators had looked at this site in the past and made some good changes.

A few days ago an administer called ZimZalaBim effectively vandalised this site. I tried to change the page back to what it was before and this administrator actually accused me of vandalism. In other words, because I disagreed, I was accused of vandalism. Having ruined this page, ZimZalaBim now wants to destroy it all together.

This entry on employer review websites is now pretty rubbish since ZimZalaBim’s vandalism. It says almost nothing. ZimZalaBim is an administrator that is out of control at Wikipedia who has personal vendettas with anyone who questions his discussions.

I imagine that this posting of mine will be deleted soon, or I may even have my account terminated for saying this, but this administrator is out of control, and has ruined this good but short entry on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a place for anyone to demonstrate to the world their power or authority, It is a privilege to be an administrator, and should nor be a power trip. Spikeysparrow (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Notable websites by industry

I came to wikipedia to figure out what employment websites I should bother with while job-searching. Instead I come to a fairly non-inclusive page with some history and the very biggest names mentioned - but nothing really segregated by industry etc. To make the page a little more useful to the little guy (me) I would like to propose the following:

1. A few industry categories, addable as needed. Start with IT, Health, Engineering, General, Clearance-required and whatever else.

2. Clear criteria for inclusion of an internal link (good to go, it would have to be notable already as per something something wikipedia policy this or that) or an external link (Alexa ranking? Verified user activity?? Something else to weed out the solo operator site that disappears in a week?).

Oppose or Approve?Pär Larsson (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

To start off with - a short list of Clearance-requiring employment websites (not necessarily notable):

Oppose JobSearchPro (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)JobSearchPro I think that's a bad idea. It will end up being a link spam target. There are legitimate directory sites which do a good job of collecting and verifying links to legitimate sites. It would probably be more appropriate to link to them.

Approve under the condition that the list is clearly limited to the very top sites (like top five general and top three for the largest categories like IT, Finance, Engineering, Health or so. The article completely lacks an international perspective (see separate post). --Alpenfreund (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Updating the citations

The section on scams is ok but needs to be greatly expanded since MANY new scams have appeared in the recession. I've tried to add the US FTC's kind of lame/limited list to the citations, but couldn't figure out how to do it. So, it is just openly linked. JobSearchPro (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)JobSearchPro

International Situation

This article seems to be focused solely on the US situation as far as I can tell. It could be improved by describing the development of the market in other countries and their major websites. I'm no expert in the subject, but back in the day (2005), the three most relevant sites in Germany were Jobpilot, Stepstone and Monster - only the last one seems to play a role in the US? A quality ranking of job related websites for the German market is cited in the German wikipedia de: Jobbörse#Qualit.C3.A4t_der_Jobb.C3.B6rsen.

In European markets, government agencies or semi-official often play an important role (quality is not always up to par), notable sites are e.g. Pôle Emploi and APEC in France or Arbeitsagentur in Germany - which might be worth mentioning.

Unfortunately, my expertise doesn't go any further than this since I left HR in 2005. Maybe there is someone out there to take up the thread? --Alpenfreund (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)