3 ms·
Ask yourself why this isn't the way already. Obviously everyone would rather only see and apply to verified listings, so why don't job boards work like that? M
by danpalmer 8mo ago
Ask yourself why this isn't the way already. Obviously everyone would rather only see and apply to verified listings, so why don't job boards work like that?
Maybe job advertisers don't want to verify, maybe it's too much hassle, maybe it costs so much to verify that you need to charge too much for listings, maybe verified listings don't scale.
It's all fine to ask what-ifs like this, but since this is obviously the good thing, you need to come with a strategy for how you'll actually achieve it.
- idontwantthis 8mo agoI think a big reason is that, just like dating apps, they don’t want you to get a job. They want you to stay on the site and load ads/pay a subscription.
- muzani 8mo agoRecruiters are the opposite; they're often incentivized to get you the job. But in the case of recruiter bonuses, the hirer is biased to hiring a slightly worse applicant that doesn't cost the recruiter fee.
- ericb 8mo ago> biased to hiring a slightly worse applicant I understand your reasoning, but in practicality, I don't think this is true. This would be true if companies though with a coherent set of incentives. Instead, individual incentives are at-play here. If a company is paying for a recruiter, it usually means: - It isn't highly cash constrained - Values the time of its IC's, managers and HR more than the fee - Valuation for the role is not cost-based, but value-based - Only at the penny pinching startup stage is the recruiter fee a real factor in a multi-year investment that should be yielding a high return. Beyond that, the bias evaporates and the real incentives lie with individual incentives, and available budgets.