From: olson@mydual.uucp (Kirtland H. Olson)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Re: new newsgroup for entry level
Summary: Possible division scheme for hierarchy
Keywords: What about the rest of misc.jobs?
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:59:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: mydual.1992Apr6.215935.3946
Followup-To: misc.jobs.misc
Organization: The Harvard Group, 01451-0667



After some thought, I came to this suggestion to better divide the jobs.*
groups for the convenience of readers. The dimensions are reasonably
independent  and the divisions seem to me mutually exclusive and complete. 
In the suggested order, one can use posting level to communicate 
willingness to accept any values of subordinate divisions.  With some 
attention to the post format, the first screen can raise all relevant issues,
further reducing the audience's frustration.  



	Dimension	Divisions of Dimension
	------------------------------------------------------------
	By Whom		{middleman, principal}

	What		{work.avail, worker.avail}

	Prior Exper.	{entry-level, carreer-change, precise-exper}

	Relationship	{contract, emp-part-time, emp-full-time}

	Duration	{temporary, permanent}

	Place of
	Performance	{on-site, off-site}

Even these relatively simple splits give 144 leaves on this tree, which
we may not want.  Keep in mind that these would come *below* the
regional divisions such as ne.jobs.*  

Putting the poster first (By Whom) let's the poster choose all the
parameters of the post and only doubles the task for the reader who
wants to see all relevant items no matter who posts them.  

At the next level, the reader chooses to read offers of work or offers
to work, but the reader already knows whether the poster is a principal
or a middleman.  

If we agreed that no postings could occur at levels one or two, then
posting at level three divides things up by experience desired or
offered and furthermore accepts any relationship, duration or place of
performance.   To limit the relationship, one posts at a lower level,
say emp-full-time, but that still accepts any duration or place of
performance.  

One finds the most specific requirements in the leaves of the tree, and
more flexible offers toward the root.  

Many readers will want to know the geographic location quickly.  Some
posters recently want location in the heading.  If not in the heading,
stating the location in the first lines would help.  I could think of no
way to divide this up for world-wide applicability.  

Consider the posting format.  When the top lines name the detailed
information to follow, the intended *audience* gets an executive
summary. No need to read further unless you are interested in the
details of the offer.  (Some current posts appear to have been written
with another audience in mind *and* for a longer format.)  If the poster
wants a long list of language capabilities, putting that information on
the first screen helps the reader decide whether to proceed.  

Posters of every kind can help by recognizing that their audience in
these groups wants to *screen* posts quickly and concentrate on relevant
ones. Neither offerors nor seekers read to uncover candidate matches. 
Both read to eliminate as many poor fits as possible before proceeding. 

I would support improved sorting of this kind.  Would you find this an
improvement?  Would some other divisions work better?  


-- 
Kirtland H. Olson                     olson%mydual.uucp@alliant.com
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc