Talk:Job hunting

message: This is an out of date term, as described in its section and on the Job hunting page.  In the past, the terms in common use were "job boards" and "resume boards" but now, since most employment-related Web sites offer both capabilities, a more appropriate term is "job sites" or something similar.  Interestingly, over the past couple of years, we've had a new class of employment-related site appear, which may fulfill that name more accurately.  These sites "aggregate" job postings from other sites and then link back to the original postings for viewing and application - those would be more appropriately called "job search engines."  In the U.S., Indeed.com and SimplyHired.com are 2 examples.
I thought that I saw this point raised last month.  It's still very valid, and should be addressed.  I'm new at this, so I don't know exactly how to do it, and how to do it acceptably.
 -- SJoyce 151.199.45.81 16:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Job Search Engines"??

message: This message was posted on my personal talk page by JRSpriggs
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages,  you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  JRSpriggs 10:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Your vandalism of [[Job hunting]] on 13 December 2006

message: In keeping with the worldwide encyclopedic nature of wikipedia would it be an idea to talk more about job seeking in different nationalities? I'd quite like an article of this nature to become a good article someday.
Of course, i could help if need be. Thegreatestuserever 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Job hunting/seeking 

message: I'm reading a source, and writing referenced non-how-to material (view/talk) for this article. This reading and writing will probably take me a couple of weeks.--Chuck (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I finished my research and writing for this article, added the material to this article and deleted the sandbox in which I was writing. I nominated this article for "Did You Know" to get the attention of experts. I apologize for not keeping more of the unsourced wording, but I was too tired of the subject to merge in more detail.--Chuck Marean 20:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm working on this page 

message: I did this edit (here). I hope you all like it.--Chuck Marean 23:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but there are major problems with this. First of all, it is massively overlinked; it's full of useless links to terms like "thankful" and "time", which do nothing to help the reader and just make an ugly sea of blue. On top of that, the way the article is taken entirely from one source makes me worry about plagiarism issues, since it is likely that you have simply copied the overall structure/outline of that source and reproduced it here. Finally, much of it is how-to, like "what you can do to improve your application". I had half a mind to revert this entire edit, but I will at least open it up to discussion for now. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What I wrote is in my words, so there are no plagiarism issues, including the table. "Structue/outline" has nothing to do with plagiarism (I'v read articles on copyright), and it is somewhat different expecially in the "interview" section. Nothing of what I wrote has stuff about "what you can do to improve your application" as far as I know. It mentions application forms exist, but does not get into filling them out. What I wrote  describes what the source claims job searching is. How-to articles are like in Ehow and Wikihow. As I wrote, I made sure it was not a how-to article, since it is intended for Wikipedia and not Wikibooks. Over time, this article might get more sources. The only source I have is the booklet I read. It's title sounds like it follows the book I mentioned in "further reading" The article now has a source which is more than it did before my edit. --Chuck Marean 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded article 

message: As it stands now this article is very bad. The main reason is that it reads like a how-to guide. [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. There are plenty of different opinions on job hunting, and it is not our place to tell people how to do it. Also all the references are from a single source, which means that it looks very like promotion for this source. The best that can be said is that it represents but a single viewpoint. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. What I wrote is nothing like a how-to. It does not give instructions or advice. I made sure of that. If you want to see what a how-to is like, see Wikihow or Ehow.--Chuck Marean 19:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, DJ Clayworth is correct. As it currently stands, this article is not written appropriately for an encyclopedia. I have restored the tags, but unfortunately do not have the significant amount of time it would take to fix the text.  — Satori Son 20:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just got done writing it, so I see nothing inappropriate or how-to about it, and I'm very tired of the subject so I'm can't work on it either. I'm not telling you to get a job, if that's what you think. I got a booklet in the mail on the subject and I noticed this article had no references, so I decided to read the booklet and take notes for the purpose of helping out this project. I bet I could have been paid ten dollars by a magazine for what I wrote, even though it took so long, so I consider it a contribution.  I've read Ehow and Wikihow so I know the difference between a factual article and advice. When I wrote, I made sure it was not a how-to. --Chuck Marean 20:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with DJ and Satori - the recent additions by Chuck are unencyclopedic and do not improve this article per WP:NOTHOWTO, etc. It all should be reverted. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Judging by the comments made here so far, I am leaning more than ever towards reverting this article before Chuck's additions. Chuck, I appreciate the amount of work you have put into this, but quite frankly it is simply not good, and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Given that you have put so much time into developing it, the best thing for you to do is to take it to an alternative outlet, such as knol or another wiki. In the meantime, there seems to be agreement (among every editor other than you)　that the additions have not been beneficial. Unless I see a major change in the next 24 hours or so, I will revert the whole thing. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The how-to and one-source issues are obvious. I'd give it a few days. No need to hurry. Chuck is making a real effort here, and no need discouraging him by not allowing him time and explaining patiently what the problem is about. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, Chuck has been down this path numerous times; lots of good faith, but rarely do any of his contributions remain unreverted. Sigh.... --ZimZalaBim talk 18:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very bad article 

message: It´s been two days since my ultimatum and I see no increase in support for Chuck´s edits, and no evidence that Chuck is working on cleaning up the content. Therefore, I have reverted the additions. --rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted

message: I think that as this article develops, it should strongly emphasize the primary importance of networking in job search.  Even now, the article says that at least 60% of jobs are found through networking.  And yet, networking is not listed at the top as the #1 job search technique.  (Any objections to changing this?)  For sourcing on the primary importance of networking, I would recommend the books by Orville Pierson and also the AIM manuals that are put out by Lee Hecht Harrison.  I think there are also some sources whose research indicates that in a recession, the percentage of jobs found through networking jumps to as high as 80%.  --Westwind273 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst not disagreeing with the advantages of networking, as the majority of jobs available are not in the senior management/ professional / technical etc disciplines but are un-skilled / clerical / operative etc roles does networking rank as so high in importance? If one includes 'word of mouth' as a form of networking all be it not proactive networking but more likely chance encounter, this may be the case but it elevation to #1 would depend on finding a good source or two proving this. Interested to see what you can come up with.Tmol42 (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have a lot of time to dig into this now, so I'm just trying to make a few suggestions on this talk page.  On the one hand, I think the studies that have been done do show that a very large percentage of jobs are found through networking.  But on the other hand, I think there has actually been a dearth of research in this important area.  I think the research community may self-correct on this in the near future, and there may be an upcoming wave of high-quality research into the effectiveness of various job search methods.  My sense is that this wave of quality research will show that job seekers spend far too much time responding to online ads, and not enough time networking.  --Westwind273 (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I think the current "50% or higher" wording in the article is far too conservative. Here are some recent links (not from the 70's) that say the actual number is more like 80% or 85%. 
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-survey-reveals-85-all-jobs-filled-via-networking-lou-adler/
https://www.payscale.com/career-news/2017/04/many-jobs-found-networking
http://www.businessinsider.com/at-least-70-of-jobs-are-not-even-listed-heres-how-to-up-your-chances-of-getting-a-great-new-gig-2017-4
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/outside-voices-careers/2014/09/17/dont-believe-these-8-job-search-myths
--Westwind273 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Primary Importance of Networking 

message: Since the 2011 JobVite study is focused on social networking and social media, that's where I placed the link to their study.  
--JobSearchPro (talk • 19:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit reverted did not touch the JobVite citation but restored a cite you had removed without explanation.Tmol42 (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Networking cite

message: The link to Wikipedia's entry for "job search engine" redirects to the more appropriate term "employment website" so I changed the link to Wikipedia's Employment website page in this entry.  It was reverted back to "job search engine."  Do not understand why.  The term "job search engine" is not useful or used, even inside Wikipedia.  Help me understand why that change was obliterated.
JobSearchPro (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently someone had meant to revert a different edit before yours, and accidentally also reverted yours in the process. I've restored it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Job search engine vs Employment website 

message: Hope it will find its readers and critics.  Viooletta (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I enlarged the largest section