Scobleizer - Latest Comments in A recruiter’s best friend

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

freddy — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:52:39 -0000

Alas, I find another gaping flaw in your mindset here. Recruiters are *not* public figures. They deal with select members of the public (who themselves may be public figures, as you purport to be), but are no more public figures than your cashier at Target. There's nothing wrong with a recruiter doing their job properly. You're going to have a fun time eating your words when your little dotcom goes bust and you can't find a recruiter that would touch you with a ten foot pole having seen this little hissy fit (you're not going to start throwing chairs, are you?). And this is deservedly so because of your own argument that what people find out online should be how potentials are judged. A recruiter shouldn't find this little egocentric post by searching for it, but no doubt your name is making the recruiter blacklist right now. If I was a recruiter, I would have already purged all your information from the resume database.

And don't worry, I never have and never will buy stock in any of the companies where you work either. I can see by their low standards of employment that these companies obviously aren't interested in quality. This is exactly why every nutjob (yes you, scobie) shouldn't have a blog. Too many people that can't handle it.

And still laughing at the way you attack the people that "don't sign" their comments. You're the one making the big deal about an online persona. They are not. Then when the only thing you can refute about their counterpoints to your rant is to attack the anonymity of the post instead of the points made in the post... well, you're not really helping your cause there, scobie. You're helping theirs since the loudmouth is the one losing the battle. You're not trying to go a "mentally unstable" vibe here, are you? Cause that's what's coming across loud and clear.

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Maurice — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:59:10 -0000

Hmm

And if I have a "dificult name" you wont hire me wouldnt go down well in some areas of the world.

NI for example as a product of a mixed maraige my name is Catholic but i'me "tecnicaly" a prod.

Maybe I should start a second online personal called "BILLY" ;-)

Microsoft people don't have a grasp of basic HR do they

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

freddy — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 05:42:47 -0000

btw, totally digging this resume bullet point:

"and became one of Microsoft’s most visible faces."

Failed, scobie. If this was true, I should know who you are. No wonder you don't want to give people resumes.

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

freddy — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 05:38:51 -0000

Yeah, scobie has a point here. Who really cares about liability lawsuits that could arise from doing unauthorized background checks when you're hiring someone? Obviously someone that takes himself seriously enough (cough cough) to call himself "scobleizer" is someone that warrants disregard for regular hiring procedures. He should just write his name on one of the napkins from his triple chili cheeseburgers (the scobie business card) and hiring managers should bow at his feet and outrageous offer letters should pour from the heavens. I can totally see the usefulness of having pics from this gada.be site - why bother with qualifications when I can just decide that I wouldn't hire the dopey-looking guy at the top of this page.

What an amazingly arrogant attitude displayed here and it's definitely not Yahoo's loss. Sheesh, just the lease on the zeppelin hangar to house his ego would exhaust their revenues. I'm glad I'll never meet scobie and that he'll probably never be working at my company - even when his dotcom goes bust.

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Shane Church — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:51:52 -0000

While I agree that online presence is important, Gada.be clearly is not the best tool for finding this out unless you are someone who would be mentioned in the media regularly. A search for my name revealed a whole 2 links that pointed to me. If you search for my name in any of the major search engines, my site is always the first handful of links, and you would get a much better picture. While this is just anecdotal, if your online presence test is that important, you need to search multiple sites, not just one pseudo-aggregator.

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Heather — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:42:38 -0000

When you say "recruits", Vinnie, who are you talking about? I don't think I'm going to be finding marketing directors on myspace, do you? I'm not questioning the value or popularity of the medium, but it's primarily social. Just because it exists doesn't mean it should be used to disqualify people from potential employment. That's my point here.

The question was HR-related, I'm in recruiting; that's the perspective I bring (you all can argue technology....not my expertise). I'm not telling people not to use the technology. Hey, I think people should use it to their advantage; specifically, use it to be found by recruiters. At the same time, I am not going to feverishly search the name of each candidate to determine whether they are worthy of consideration based on search engine hits. There's not a 1:1 connection between skills and web-presence.

I've benefitted greatly from my web presence...I get the headhunter calls too, speaking engagements, probably more credibility assigned to me than I deserve. At the same time, I work with people that are as good as me, if not better and they don't have the same web presence. I just can't buy into the idea of using it to judge a candidate's skills/worth/potential.

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

vinnie mirchandani — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:23:11 -0000

Heather, you ask "you know who think a web presence is important?". Forget just HR, think broadly. The answer comes from Murdoch's investment in MySpace.com, Microsoft planning to spend billions building a SaaS grid, the Net Neutrality debate in Congress right now...the question to ask is who does not believe a web presence is important?

About your point about those people who already have web presence..The barriers to entry to being on the web are down dramatically from 3 years ago. You can get a personal blog for a few dollars a year. You can take part in mashup camps for little and produce tested, workable s/w code. The question increasingly for recruits should be how come you did not do much on/with the web?

Old HR screening techniquues are tired - resumes are embellished or gamed to pass through scanning software, reference calls are down to yes/no answers - why would you not want to find other sources of info - good and bad - about your candidates?

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Heather — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:30:52 -0000

Vinnie-the answer is what I said before. Not every good marketing person has a significant online presence. Not every marketing role requires acting as an "evangelist", not every person in their role desires to be externally facing or "in the spotlight". I just don't think a web presence is a reasonable or telling measure of someone's worth as a potential employee. Some of the less impressive people I know have their name all over the internet. Some of the best I know couldn't care to be bothered by it while they are at work and excelling at their jobs.

You know who think a web presence is important? People who have them. Of course they do. It makes them the perfect candidate for the job.

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Wesley Parish — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:16:13 -0000

Well, for what little it's worth, do you mind me not applying, Robert?

My problem isn't the "common name" syndrome already discussed above, it's the "uncommon name" syndrome. The last time I ego-surfed was 2000, and I was promptly floored by discovering "The Wesley Parish", an online Methodist magazine. For some strange reason, I find that extremely funny - it seems I've got a built-in pseudonym. But you don't find that with "Robert Scoble".

Seriously, what use would it be to scout for everybody on the Net, unless you already knew they had built up a presence, a discernable identity on it? If you look for me on the Net, I'm sure you'll find some very interesting things - like a prediction that Linux would subsume the Unix world; also some short short snippets of SF - circa 500 words or so. Go on, do it if you want to - you're hereby granted permission to publish any such short short story of mine that takes your fancy, on your blog, and discuss it - provided the usual courtesies of attribution, etc, are followed.

But it still doesn't mean a lot when it comes to recruitment.

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Jawahar Mundlapati — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 07:54:05 -0000

Robert:

Curious to know.
Is your employment at microsoft a win-win proposition?

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Tim Dawson — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 07:46:20 -0000

You'll pass on hiring people?

Since when do you know anything about hiring people? You're not a developer, you're not a manager, you're not in HR.

You're an evagelist who talks about exciting geeks things.

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

vinnie mirchandani — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:21:35 -0000

Heather, great point - but for certain roles more appropriate than others. May be for engineers or accountants you would not expect much web presence, but for marketing, bd etc etc, why not?

Look at what HR relies on today. Resumes - often inflated. Reference calls which lawyers do not allow you to say more than yes or no in. Interviews - which not everyone is good at - they are nervous, smooth whatever, but typically a poor indicator of job success. The web, flawed as it might be, tells another story about the candidate ...

It goes beyond HR. I run a small business. Clients always want references - as they should. Reference calls take time to arrange. I have closed several pieces of business by telling a prospect - would you mind checking our credentials on the web while we arrange reference calls ( I am lucky because of my Gartner career I got a bit of press exposure). I do not know what they will find - positive or negative, but I think most clients appreciate that transparency - and many after a Google search don't bother to go through with the reference call.

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Heather — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:58:02 -0000

I've got to disagree with you too. Web presence will definitely get you noticed, but it's not the end-all, be-all. Frankly, half the time (maybe more?), it's baggage. You want to be kept from your next position because someone who doesn't like you has something to say about you on their blog? It could be already happening and you don't even know about it.

A web presence is a tool that professionals should use to get noticed (by recruiters, potential clients., etc). Because you cannot prove the authority of all that lives online, it is certainly not a tool to judge someone's worth. And I know some incredible people that don't have a significant online presence. Not everyone needs to be the "public face". Not every "public face" is the person making the decisions. Many performers don't have attention-seeking personalities (I'm not talking about myself, of course). Look, I think it's wise from a career perspective to build your presence online (and try to make as much of it positive as possible), but I find the argument that someone without one isn't hirable to be weak.

As a recruiter (and I have been for 12 years), what I care about is whether you can get the job done and contribute long term (based on core skills). I may use your online presence to find you, and it *may* say positive things about you. But at the end of the day, it's about who can do the job. It's not a disqualifier if the web isn't all abuzz about you.

Just my opinion, of course. Not all great people have a web presence, not all people with a web presence are great.

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Byron Prather — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:32:08 -0000

On the one hand I agree with you. You should use all of the tools that you can to research someone and that includes search engines. I know plenty of people at Microsoft that do not have a significant presence on the web that are doing awesome things. I used to report to the guy that created the Windows flag, the IE logo, and many other things. He's doing amazing things at Microsoft and if you search on his name you don't come up with a whole ton of stuff. You do find some things but not nearly as many hits as you have.

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Jack Box — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:24:48 -0000

I searched the name "Don Box" using this tool, didn't return a lot useful links.

If it doesn't work with names of famous people, will it work with names of not-so-importnant people?

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Christopher Coulter — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:04:09 -0000

Arrogant, yes, but then Human Resources types and Recruiters are but the Devil Incarnate. Do thy homework, recruiters. It's all shotgun approached, and never had one that made me feel even remotely human. Most are just people movers, Person A to Company B in the shortest amount of time, collect the take. Next. Play up 20 people with false hopes, and never get back with the other 19. The solution? Just cut to the hiring Mgr. if at all possible, don't pound on the front HR door, take the side entrances.

But I woulda at least explored the Yahoo bit, never burn a bridge, never know what in store.

PS - Gada.be is not the only network out there, sometimes those in the background wield more power than those in the front. Work in DC or LA and you will understand. Say you are in the hiring market for an Engineer, worked 20 years at Sandia National Lab and tons of patents to name, but blank in Gada.be, guess you can trash his resume then. Sometimes those that do the most leave the least bloggy footprints. Case by case.

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

hugh macleod — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:34:48 -0000

"Numptie factor" is high today, Robert ;-)

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Michael Henry — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:36:54 -0000

Robert,

What about those of us with ultra-common names?

Look for me on google. Even looking in my field of choice, there are several other Michael Henry's. What do you do when you get too many hits, and you don't know which is the person you are looking for?

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Bill — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:11:44 -0000

It should be noted that the Google you did on Bob Widlansky returned a lot of trash, nothing seemingly relevant. Taking the OP's data point that he's doing good things at Moto, this search returns zero result.

http://www.google.com/searc...

The thing I can't understand is why you say it's risky to hire somehione who does not have an online persona. I can think of a lot of things it might be from your POV, but risky is not on the list.

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Chris Davies — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:49:18 -0000

I think you've swallowed your own propaganda here. Most technical professionals doing important things well who never talk about it. That sort of self-promotion is just alien to them.

The idea that somebody's online persona in some way matches their competence at a job is laughable. I think a good counterexample would be Russell Beattie getting a job at Wavemarket based on his online presence.

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Daniel — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:10:43 -0000

If you do a Google search on groups, you'll find a thread in which Marc Andreesen discusses his favourite comedy porno movies...

http://groups.google.com/gr...

So, Robert, do we hire, or do we not hire ;-) ?

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

razib — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:54:55 -0000

I do not know why I can see a lot of bitter feeling against Robert here. Whatever Robert has accomplished, he has done it with hard work and dediction. Now, it is his day and let him enjoy it. Tomorrow your or my day may come too.
Anyaway, thanks for the link Robert. I found myself visible in that search (http://gada.be/d/razib-ahmed) and the result was far better than I expected. Does it mean anything?

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Gavin Fischer — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 08:22:47 -0000

I have a different problem with these sites TODAY. They will, likely, improve with time. For right now, and I am in biotech mind you, the "nothing on line" criteria would rule out a whole lot of people who are bright. These engines aren't yet good enough. In the computer field - maybe (not enough data on my part). Outside of that field - Not happening. I don't really come up on Gada.be at all. If you know me, you can tell who I am (I don't design F1 cars, but am jealous of that other guy with my name) from the Google listings.

I totally agree with NEVER put anything on line that you don't want to have come back and haunt you years down the road, but don't agree with the "if I can't find anything then you are by definition boring" statement. In my field it just isn't true.

Gavin Fischer

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

Stuart — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 07:55:43 -0000

Leaving aside the 'on-grid' v 'off-grid' debate one has to say that your closing comment in this blog is a very shortsighted view.

It presumes that one knows about gada.be - I didn't until I saw the hullabaloo you've kicked up (or had kicked up by others) with the "did he resign, was he pushed" comments.

Secondly your ad hominem attacks don't serve you well for the future. As a potential employer I would try to utilise every means at my disposal to check out a potential new employee BUT I certainly would not dismiss them out of hand just because they don't exist in one of these precious data mining tools. But seeing comments in public like yours (however justified they may or may not be) would make me think twice.

I, for example, do exist and have done so online for a very long time (in net terms) yet their is still precious little about me on the web - and that has been a deliberate approach on the whole (for reasons you don't ever need to know even if you were looking to employ me). For example, using gada.be there are no pictures, no blogs and very little other info which is just fine by me.

I wish you all the best in whatever you try to acheive.

Re: A recruiter’s best friend

John Thomson — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 04:27:08 -0000

That principle kind of breaks when you have a VERY common name! In that case you'll need to be doing a bit more intelligent research / searching of the net.

I've always found recruitment consultants to be useless! Used them once and ended up in a job that I really wasn't suitable for and more importantly left within 10 months. Nearly all the recuiters I've used as both hirer and hiree (if that's a real word), have been more interested in filling job vacancies than finding the right candidate! Perhaps being commissioned based has something to do with that.

For all the "self importance" whingers, you have an option .... UNSUBSCRIBE! Why waste your time reading Scoble if you don't believe him or think he is just a self important, opinionated (insert prefered expletive) *!*$*F(! ?

p.s. Gary wont leave Dundee, Scotland so your company will need to relocate to the land of haggis and whisky ;-).

p.p.s. I had a hell of a time getting this commented posted. Connection timeout, 404's, etc.