This is the presentation I gave at Enterprise Search Summit Fall 2010 in Washington DC (also known as Knowledge Management World 2010). It describes the challenges of designing and enterprise search solution for recruiters and hiring managers and the process TheLadders.com took to redesign its RecruitLadder product.
2. Who is this guy?
Other people let him speak to them before. He must be
smart.
Jeff Gothelf
Currently:
Director of UX at
TheLadders.com
Previously:
Publicis Modem, Webtrends,
AOL, Fidelity and an
assortment of startups
Blog:
www.jeffgothelf.com/blog
Twitter:
@jboogie
Email:
jgothelf@theladders.c
3. Job service for professionals
earning $100k or more and the
recruiters/employers looking
to hire them.
4. Online job searching is like online
dating
Post and pray
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1017/1344679664_fda1c4e7ed_o.jpg
6. The title “vice president” is ambiguous.
Does it mean the same thing on two resumes?
Jeff Bewkes
Former VP of Time Warner
(now CEO)
Anonymous
(hint, it’s me)
10. Job listings expire after 8 weeks
Which is 28x longer than the Mayfly
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Rhithrogena_germanica_subimago_on_Equisetum_hyemale.jpg
12. Job listings are not standardized
No way to reconcile the necessary data into a consistently usable
format
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QARHL7waWy8/THs1F1r1yOI/AAAAAAAAAew/rYmQD1Wxcas/s1600/100813_lagos.globalcities059.jpg
14. Resumes come in every size, shape, color and
layout
Getting machines to understand where to pull which data elements
is…a challenge.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgl/2693953392/sizes/o/
16. Every job posting equals hundreds of
applications
How does the recruiter figure out which ones to focus on?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/94693506@N00/57820781/sizes/o/
19. Call them. Bring them in. Watch them work.
After all, you’re solving problems for them.
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/greal/llc/germanwq/Germ670_AYASalzburg/images/Interview.jpg
41. Thanks!
Ask me some questions. Here. Now. Or later:
jgothelf@theladders.com / @jboogie
Notas del editor
Two parties knowing approximately what they’re looking for but uncertain, put out poorly filled-out profiles and hope that somehow, someway the “magic” of the internet will connect them AND that they’ll be right for each. There are as many components of “fit” in dating as there are in the job search and getting them all right based on profiles, job descriptions and a little boolean skill rarely guarantees the right fit.
Example: vice president is a very common term, especially in financial services. In certain contexts, the title VP connotes a position of authority and leadership and in others, it’s one of many rungs on the corporate ladder. How do you differentiate this in an interface?
The word vice president appears in many places on a resume but are you in fact looking at a vice president who has actually been vice president? Or are you looking at something else?
Job descriptions come and go from the site with regularity. Some get filled. Some get pulled down. Some expire. But the database is constantly updated with new jobs, descriptions, terminologies and keywords.
There is no standardized format for job descriptions and despite consistent upload/posting forms on the site, the data comes in various places with random amounts of meta-data, descriptors and actual value for the database (not to mention the job seeker).
Anecdote about recruiter who had such niche listings that struggled to meet 100 word minimum. Did it by writing white on white text.
There is no standardized resume format. Job seekers submit information in every way they can think of to differentiate and get noticed. Parsing this data and then attempting to match it up with the non-standard job description data becomes a big challenge as well.
Posting a job means hundreds of applicants. Each of those applicants falls in a different spot on the spectrum of viability. How can the recruiter quickly figure out who to focus on and who to discard for this explicit job search?
We ran multiple waves of user research to understand where things were working and where they were not. In addition we wanted to understand how recruiters did their jobs and how we could integrate into that existing workflow (since we’re not big enough to get them to adjust their workflow).
Old site: search buried on the homepage, bad design, not clear call to action or direction on where to start.
Old site: search results – unclear if recruiter should click on an candidate, extra clicks = extra time, something recruiters don’t have. Unclear why some had resumes and others didn’t.
Old site: candidate view…
So we put the four primary search fields (learned through multiple user studies and phone calls with recruiters): Keywords, Location, Radius, Job Title and Company in our global header (on every page).
Start with as broad or narrow a search as you need from the top navigation bar – all the key criteria is there and it support boolean queries
We also took on the advanced search page. The key challenge was figuring out how to show drill down facets in the taxonomy without overloading the UI.
Once the user gets to search results, they can then filter through any and all facets on the left rail. The challenge here was to show all the controls, again, without overloading the UI. The twisties help limit how many options are shown by default and give the user control to make as complex as needed.
Beyond the basic items, was there another way to bring core information into the search results UI? Enter the jobgraph.
Even if you did end up with no matches to your query, this was only the beginning of the exploration.
57% of all searches on our site begin with the persistent search bar
15% decrease in the amount of times a recruiter would use only one search
field (80% to 65%).
(as of 8/09 to 12/09)