Louise's UK Recruiter Blog

That's not a signature file - at all!

After my ramblings earlier in the week about long sig files I started to notice how many people don't have any signature file at all.  That is so much more annoying than a lot of waffle at the end of an email.  Hello, who are you?  Who do you work for?  What's your website address, office number, mobile?   Maybe some people only want to be contacted by email - but at least tell me who you are.   As well as giving useful information signature files make emails look professional.  No signature file.... "how rude" as my friend Sara likes to say.

That's not a signature file - it's an essay

I got an email the other day that was 7 words long.  Nothing too unusual in that.  I scanned down to see who it was from and noted the sig file seemed to go on a bit. It was 323 words long and ran over 30 plus lines!  I couldn't tell you what it said I was losing the will to live after the 8th line. 

So what's the optimum length for a sig file?  Apparently there is a internet standard for sig files.  This was set down by a chap called McQuary who stated a sig file should be:

• no longer than 4 lines
• preceded by --

Of course nowadays people include lots of "legal" (butt covering) disclaimers in their sig's.  Stuff about the views contained in this email are my own and not my employer's and if you get a virus from this email don't blame us.   For those interested in silly disclaimers visit http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/.   However, I don't want anyone suing me if they remove their disclaimers after reading this, so here's a site in favour of them http://www.emaildisclaimers.com/.

Perhaps everyone ought to add an "email disclaimer" page onto their web site and just point at it.  Bostock and Pollitt (has to be a law firm with a name like that) have one on their site: http://www.bostockandpollitt.com/email.html

If you are interested, my signature file is six lines long.  I'm just about to add the --.  That, at least, should please Mr McQuary!

Search and you will find (well maybe)

I never thought I'd be able to entertain myself with web stats.  However, included in our stats is a section showing the search terms people typed into google to find our site.  It didn't just list the top 10 - it lists all of them (over 3000 last month!).   I decided reading them all wasn't a great use of my time (even though it was quite interesting) but these are two that caught my eye.

• "Waren Kemp free download". 
• "literature review linked with questions and objectives of success factors influencing recruitment and selection of employee". 

Do you think they found the answer to their "questions" on our site?

If this sort of thing interests you (or maybe it's just me who likes to peer into other people's brain's) you can view AOL's top searches, what people are looking for at Google and at ASK.

Back to our site.  I was going to tell you what the top search terms were that drove people to our site... but I don't want to give away the secrets of our search engine success :). Needless to say I've not been surprised seeing as we are called "uk recruiter" and we have listings of "recruitment software", "cv database", "job board" and "recruitment training" on the site!

RecruitRank a response from Jobsite

After my blog post about RecruitRank Cheryl (Communications Executive at Jobsite) sent me an email.  Here's what she said.

It was good to talk to you last week & I think what you have written is well informed & balanced.

I have a few points which I have outlined below.

• The whole ethos with RecruitRank is that it’s not a system to name and shame as we don’t see this to be productive. We launched RecruitRank to help provide a better service to candidates and to assist clients in their recruitment and performance. We believe this can be achieved through providing clients with a confidential candidate feedback report.
• As well as the four questions that candidates are asked when using RecruitRank, there is also space provided for them to leave a written comment. We encourage them to use this so that they can expand on the areas where they are happy or unhappy. This is very useful for agencies to use when working out how they can improve their service. It should also be noted that if a candidate chooses to leave feedback for an agency using RecruitRank they only have to answer the first question, which asks for their overall impression of the agency. The other three questions are optional.
• For the purpose of displaying the top 10 recruitment agencies on the Jobsite homepage we limit the scores to 2 decimal points. Therefore it sometimes appears that agencies with the same score are ranked below each other rather than joint. However, calculations in the background display the number with more decimal places and this is how the position in the RecruitRank table is worked out.
• We don’t allow the algorithm of how the RecruitRank results are calculated to be made public for the same reason that search engines keep their algorithms private; it helps to stop manipulation. We only want the Top 10 agencies as voted by candidates to have a place on the homepage.
• The nominations for the RecruitRank Awards won’t be announced in September’s issue of Recruitment Consultant but will feature in the October issue.
• The only reason that the RecruitRank Awards are restricted to jobsite advertisers at present is because we are the only ones currently using the RR system. We are hoping this will expand in the future.
• An agency’s RecruitRank score is calculated using feedback left during the last 90 days. Agencies can see in their reports how many people have left feedback.
• We make a concerted effort to encourage candidates to leave positive feedback when they’ve had a good experience and comments that we have show that this does happen. We also ask for constructive feedback so if a candidate has scored an agency low in a certain area we ask them to use the text box to explain why.
• In response to the point that if we don’t name and shame agencies we may as well pass the feedback on privately, we believe that those agencies that candidates are saying are doing well should be recognised and celebrated. We give all agencies their candidate feedback, those doing well & those doing not so well. However, as recruitment agencies sometimes struggle with their image and people can be quite negative towards them we think it’s a good thing to highlight those that getting good candidate feedback.

executivesontheweb... a response from the Ops Director

Justin Finch, the Operations Director at executivesontheweb has sent me an emailing thanking me for posting the blog (see below) but asking that I give him the opportunity of clarifying one area.  Here is his email.

You mentioned limitations within our new feature based on the fact that certain companies will be using their own internal systems.

My analogy on this is that if you purchased a new suit from Hugo Boss would you expect to wear it? The answer is of course YES, so this principle is the same with our service. We expect people who sign up, to actually use our service.

It takes literally a second to hit the yes / no feedback button on email or alternatively a minute to use the response service within the account which allows for multiple feedback......Is this too much to ask ?

Remember this........ Our service is not about confirming an interview, its about politely informing people of the status of their application.

To be honest the biggest flaw is not our system........ its the lack of feedback to candidates. Our aim is to eradicate this from our website, although I am realistic enough to know that some people will buy a new suit and never actually wear it :)

Best Regards, Justin

Justin Finch
Operations Director
www.executivesontheweb.com 

Jobsite's RecruitRank

Yesterday afternoon I caught up with Cheryl Morgan who is Communications Executive at Jobsite

The background to this conversation is that over the last few months I've had a number of emails and calls from recruiters who were concerned about the RecruitRank system and what it might mean for their business.

How it works
Last week Jobsite launched a website specifically explaining about RecruitRank www.recruitrank.co.uk and their newly announced awards.  You can read a full explanation there.  However, basically RecruitRank only ranks agencies (not corporate recruiters).  The process is that a candidate makes a job application via Jobsite through a recruitment agency.  Several weeks after this they get an email asking them if they want to leave confidential feedback via a link.  They have to rank the agency on a scale of 1 to 5 for four questions.   These are Overall impression of the agency, Maintaining contact and updating you on progress, Understanding your needs and Knowledge of your industry sector.  The answer to the first question (Overall impression of the agency) is the one which is used to calculate the RecruitRank rank.  The other three questions are used to give feedback to the agency.

They have had around 100,000 pieces of feedback since last November.

The results
A league table of the top 10 is produced daily and featured on the home page of Jobsite (www.jobsite.co.uk).  Additionally a confidential report giving feedback on all four questions is sent to the specific agency for which the feedback has been given each month (it can be also be checked online by that agency).

The Awards Ceremony
There is going to be an awards ceremony in November.  The full story about who has been nominated and when the awards will take place will be revealed in September on the RecruitRank website and via The Recruitment Consultant magazine (who are their media partners).  There are a number of categories and all but one are restricted to Jobsite advertisers.

Upgrades
Cheryl commented that they are really keen to get feedback from users. If you are one of the people who has emailed or phoned me with feedback then please also call Jobsite (speak to your Account Manager if you advertise with them).

One of the issues with the system is that the agency has no right of reply and no way of knowing how or why the candidate felt inclined to rate the agency in a particular way.  Jobsite are looking at a way that agencies can make contact with candidates who have left feedback without the candidate losing their confidentiality.

She also mentioned that they may implement an "upgrade" to show top 10 tables by "large recruitment agency", "small recruitment agency" and by industry sector.

So, what's the problem
The biggest issue I have with RecruitRank isn't about the data they are collecting, it's about the fact that the publish a league table.

Don't get me wrong I really like the idea of raising standards in the industry (obviously!) and I think that for many agencies getting a monthly feedback report could help them improve the way they conduct their business (assuming the data is accurate).  Jobsite are actually offering a great free ad-on in respect of these reports.  However, to my mind the publishing of the table really only benefits those in the 10 top and is a promotional opportunity for Jobsite.  I'm sure it does benefit candidates to a certain extent in that they can see 10 agencies that have been ranked as giving a "good overall impression" to other candidates.  However, it doesn't mean that any of these agencies can help that particular candidate find a job. The way that the league table would really work is if they published the rankings of every single agency.  This would seriously encourage agencies to clean up their act!  However, I can't see Jobsite doing this due to the backlash from clients (and it's not a serious suggestion on my part - before you all start emailing me abuse!).

Also, if they are going to publish league tables they should also publish precisely how the results are calculated. They should show how many people gave feedback and what timeframe it was over.  They need to clear up the anomaly that when more than one agency gets the same "score" they are still shown as being 2nd, 3rd and 4th, etc, rather than all joint 2nd - which is more accurate.   Also, I think it could be clearer to jobseekers that the ranking only applies to Jobsite agencies (I'm sure that they'd argue the context makes it clear).

There are other limitations to the system - such as candidates being more likely to respond if they have negative feedback to give rather than positive and the fact that we mustn't forget this isn't representative of the whole industry - just of Jobsite's candidates and clients.

In my opinion, if they aren't going to "name and shame" they could have just a big an impact on standards in the industry by getting candidate feedback and passing it on to agencies in private.

executivesontheweb's League Table

Yesterday afternoon I spoke with Justin Finch, Operations Director, of executivesontheweb (eotw).  I first ought to point out that it's now clear that the eotw "league table" is completely different from Jobsite's RecruitRank.  I hope to catch up with Jobsite today so will post more on RecruitRank later.

Back to eotw.

Justin told me the system was implemented after a great deal of feedback from candidates saying their biggest complaint about consultancies is the lack of response they get when applying for a vacancy via a job board.   

The objective of the feedback league table was to encourage consultancies to respond to candidates.   When a candidate applies for a job on eotw the recruiter gets an email.  eotw have implemented a new stage here where the recruiter can hit a "feedback button" saying yes or no as to whether the candidate is "initially" suitable.  The eotw system then sends an appropriate standard letter to the candidate.

Basically, if you have 1 job with 100 applicants and you respond to 80 of them using the "feedback button" that's classed as 80% feedback rate. There is no actual "feedback" from candidates involved.

To be number one you need to respond to every single application using the feedback button. The limitation of the system is around consultancies who use a third party to post jobs (eg, Broadbean) or use an automated service to download their CVs.  Or if the CVs are downloaded by a support person who isn't in a position to say if a candidate is initially suitable.  Additionally, just because the consultancy isn't using the eotw "feedback button" it doesn't mean they aren't responding directly to every single candidate.   However, once an advertiser understands the system, and if they want to appear at the top of the league table, they could be "playing the game" and clicking the yes/no button to acknowledge candidate response.  Really, everyone who wants to be can be in the number one slot.  The idea behind the system is admirable but unfortunately has a major flaw in that those recruiters that give 100% response by other means get rated bottom of the table.  I wonder if this can be overcome by an amend to the system.

The web page with the feedback table on (http://www.executivesontheweb.com/response/league.cfm) has now been amended to make it clearer for what the recruiters are being ranked.

By the way, at the end of the year they will be presenting certificates to the top 3 companies in the league table to acknowledge their performance. 

Candidate Feedback Systems

On Friday executivesontheweb sent an email announcing the launch of their new candidate feedback technology.   The email included a link to the "top 100 candidate feedback table" (http://www.executivesontheweb.com/response/league.cfm). 

This isn't the first candidate feedback table of this type. A few month's ago Jobsite launched RecruitRank (http://www.jobsite.co.uk/home/cand_recruitrank.html).  The top 10 companies are featured on the homepage of the Jobsite site.

When RecruitRank was launched I had a few calls/emails from concerned recruiters.  I have had the same today about the executivesontheweb league table.   One specific comment is "we were concerned over the lack of visibility around the criteria and methodology used.  We are yet to be convinced that it is representative". 

I've left a message for the Operations Director at executivesontheweb and will follow up with them and Jobsite this week.  I'm interested in finding out more about exeuctivesontheweb's method of data collection as well as how the industry feels about these sites (see discussion thread here).  I am sure that both sites have noble intentions of raising standards in the industry but I wonder if they will also be seen to be "biting the hand that feeds them".  Expect more to be posted here as the week goes on.

By the way, when I checked a minute ago only the top 25 recruiters are shown on the executivesontheweb site.

REC to recruit

Gareth Osborne has announced this week that he will shortly be leaving the Recruitment and Employment Confederation.  Gareth has been the MD of the REC for the last three years during which time there have been a number of positive changes to increase the profile and influence of the association.  As a governing body it still attracts a lot of criticism - but perhaps that's a topic for a future post!   

Apparently the REC will be using a recruitment agency (obviously an REC member!) to recruit Gareth's replacement, but they haven't yet been chosen.  If you think you can handle such a high profile assignment why not give the REC a call.

By the way, I asked the REC's Press Manager what Gareth's next career move was likely to be but was told "Gareth regrets he cannot divulge his future plans currently".   So maybe there's some business out there for an outplacement company too!

Discussion board thread on RecruitmentRevolution

There's been a thread started on the disucssion board about RecruitmentRevolution here.  There's a great posting by "StudentGrant" and a response from Jamie at RecruitmentRevolution.

A recruitment revolution?

I had a call and a press release from RecruitmentRevolution.com’s PR agent today.  When she got off the phone she probably wished she’d got my answer phone!

The press release reads, “today sees the launch of www.RecruitmentRevolution.com, the UK's first fully functional online recruitment agency. The concept, which aims to abolish exorbitant recruitment agency fees so that more money from the client can be directed towards the candidates, was devised by recent graduates Jamie Mistlin (27) and Anna Taylor (24) after their poor experience of recruitment agencies.”

Basically the point of the site is to cut out the middleman.  To remove the need for a recruitment agency (although – you may have noticed that’s what they call themselves in the press release!).  Rather than pay a temp agency for staff a corporate client can visit the site and locate their own temp.  They pay the candidate via Recruitment Revolution, adding about £2 per hour in fees. 

I don’t have any particular problem with the principle of a site that is only for corporates.  There are a number of job boards that won’t take advertising from recruitment agencies and CV databases which are only available to corporates.  Also, RecruitmentRevolution.com does have a couple of useful extras – a battery of online tests to help clients assess a candidate and an E-Bay type feedback system for candidates. 

The things I have a problem with is their approach of slating of the industry.  Also, do they really think that by charging lower fees “more money from the client can be directed towards the candidate”?  There are some statistics quoted in the press release that I find hard to believe. These are:

95% of graduates resent the profits recruitment agencies make out of them
90% of graduates feel that agents do not act in the employees’ best interests
80% of graduates are rarely happy with the service provided by their recruitment consultant.

God, I hope these aren’t true.  Tomorrow’s business leaders thinking so little of those that can help them build their empires.

Jamie and Anna, despite what they may proclaim, are now running a recruitment agency.   What’s that quote “we become the thing we despise the most”.