4 ms·

First, thanks for the super thoughtful response. It suggests that One Job a Day is at least striking a cord with users, but now it's about optimizing the UX. R

First, thanks for the super thoughtful response. It suggests that One Job a Day is at least striking a cord with users, but now it's about optimizing the UX. Regarding point 1 - this is definitely something I've been thinking about too. For the MVP, I have the job poster supply an outbound link to their current job post/resume collecting portal. But, my plan is to build an application screening component into the site as well. For the applier, we can save their information and allow for frictionless applying, and for the recruiter, my hope is to put things in place where they can better filter their candidates so it's not as overwhelming for them to review candidates. 2) I think you're right that I should add a "last X daily jobs" so people can browse if they missed the job of the day. But, my hope is that having a super narrow focus (entry-level marketing jobs at top tech companies) means that the job relevancy goes from 1 in 10 to maybe 1 in 3. Similar to Woot.com or any daily deals site, the deal might not be relevant to you today and that's okay. It's so easy and passive to just come back and check tomorrow if there's relevance that I'm hoping to turn this into a more passive, DAU heavy product than traditional job boards. Regarding tracks, 100% agree. A lot of people I've shared the idea with say I should create things like "/developer" or "/finance", and I do want to do that in the future. But, for now, I'm sticking with a very narrow focus because I've seen how a broad target results in poor engagement from many users whereas this time I want to have heavy engagement from a small subset of users. Keep the feedback coming!

codingdave 7y ago
I'd think even more carefully about these plans - if you are focusing on entry-level, then the job seekers who need this are not the pool of people who the hiring manager needs. They are the pool of people who are not even landing their first jobs. No matter how smooth you make it, at some point your service to the hiring manager will be, "Here are all the people who nobody else wanted to hire." It would make more sense to do this by excluding entry-level jobs. Then experienced people can watch it over time, and selectively apply for something that truly looks like their dream job comes along. That will result in a pool of people to the hiring manager of, "I'm experienced, hire-able, and specifically want to work with you."

codingdave 7y ago

I'd think even more carefully about these plans - if you are focusing on entry-level, then the job seekers who need this are not the pool of people who the hiring manager needs. They are the pool of people who are not even landing their first jobs. No matter how smooth you make it, at some point your service to the hiring manager will be, "Here are all the people who nobody else wanted to hire." It would make more sense to do this by excluding entry-level jobs. Then experienced people can watch it over time, and selectively apply for something that truly looks like their dream job comes along. That will result in a pool of people to the hiring manager of, "I'm experienced, hire-able, and specifically want to work with you."