Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Recruiter Honeypot

ewherry.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 162 posts

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#61

Post by dennisgorelik »

bobbles wrote: post #55
dennisgorelik wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would job board enforce that?

Mandatory form fields? Is that what you mean?

What would prevent recruiter from putting fake data into these fields? For salary it could be "negotiable" or "competitive".

For company name it could be name of recruiting company (not actual employer) or just plain fake.

Besides, sometimes employers don't want to advertise their openings publicly (may be to avoid getting flooded by irrelevant applications or prevent panic among existing employees).

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#62

Post by brc »

TamDenholm wrote: post #2

This is really interesting. I'm a contractor so i deal with recruiters a hell of a lot. I've never come across a good recruiter to work with, 90% of them are an annoyance but harmless and 10% are outright scumbags. Its really interesting to see this honeypot information. I think recruiting is an industry thats ripe for disruption, especially for tech contractors and i've got a theory on how to do it, one day i'll wri…

Well, my disruption idea is to break the entire recruiting process into a value chain, and create little markets for each piece. So a company can list a position on the site (or maybe even on an existing site). But, instead of either a recruitment agency doing everything, or the company doing everything, they can break down the process and take bids on each step.

So maybe one person is really good at sorting a pile of CVs into a shortlist. Maybe another is good at phone screening. The company can outsource (via the site) any or all of the parts that go into filling a position. Providers (which would be individuals or small companies) bid for these tasks in an open marketplace along the lines of elance.

Effectively it is taking the roles of the recruiter and busting them down into pieces, and allowing different people to specialise into different things.

It's no more fleshed as an idea than that, but the basic concept is that a recruiter is considered by many to be overpaid, but fulfills a necessary evil. By allowing companies to directly outsource individual pieces they can utilise what they need from a recruiter without having to pay for the whole amount. And a skilled recruiter can get good work under their own banner without all the overhead of having to get an office and form a company, and themselves become freelance agents for hire.

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#63

Post by radley »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #7

What is the contractual result for breaking a no-poach clause? Should companies inform their employees of no-poach agreements and request to be told when anyone is contacted by a recruiter from Company X? There is an on-going anti-trust lawsuit about no poach policies involving Google, Apple, Intel, Pixar, and more. How does that play into things?

Actually "no poach" aka "non-compete" clauses are void in California:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Exceptions_-...

So she really had no grounds to demand and expect it.

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#64

Post by dennisgorelik »

brc wrote: post #62
TamDenholm wrote: post #2

This is really interesting. I'm a contractor so i deal with recruiters a hell of a lot. I've never come across a good recruiter to work with, 90% of them are an annoyance but harmless and 10% are outright scumbags. Its really interesting to see this honeypot information. I think recruiting is an industry thats ripe for disruption, especially for tech contractors and i've got a theory on how to do it, one day i'll wri…

Well, my disruption idea is to break the entire recruiting process into a value chain, and create little markets for each piece. So a company can list a position on the site (or maybe even on an existing site). But, instead of either a recruitment agency doing everything, or the company doing everything, they can break down the process and take bids on each step. So maybe one person is really good at sorting a pile o…

Who is going to glue all these pieces together? I think overhead of managing all these small steps would exceed time savings you get from outsourcing.

Overhead would be in:

1) Teaching ALL participants about job to fill.

2) Dealing with job seeker's frustration when he would need to answer the same questions to different people in the process.

3) Restricting access to potentially sensitive personal information.

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#65

Post by mgkimsal »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #61
bobbles wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mandatory form fields? Is that what you mean?

What would prevent recruiter from putting fake data into these fields? For salary it could be "negotiable" or "competitive". For company name it could be name of recruiting company (not actual employer) or just plain fake. Besides, sometimes employers don't want to advertise their openings publicly (may be to avoid getting flooded by irrelevant applications or prevent panic among existing employees).

Everything would need to be vetted and approved manually.

There would be a sort of self-selection that would come in to play - the only companies that would advertise there would be companies that are comfortable being public with that sort of specific information.

The salary one would probably need to be a range - $60k-$75k, for example. This sets expectations on both sides, although it might not stop a lot of misfit submissions, but those aren't generally stopped now anyway.

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#66

Post by brc »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #64
brc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, my disruption idea is to break the entire recruiting process into a value chain, and create little markets for each piece. So a company can list a position on the site (or maybe even on an existing site). But, instead of either a recruitment agency doing everything, or the company doing everything, they can break down the process and take bids on each step. So maybe one person is really good at sorting a pile o…

Who is going to glue all these pieces together? I think overhead of managing all these small steps would exceed time savings you get from outsourcing. Overhead would be in: 1) Teaching ALL participants about job to fill. 2) Dealing with job seeker's frustration when he would need to answer the same questions to different people in the process. 3) Restricting access to potentially sensitive personal information.

The site manages the entire process. It's both workflow manager and marketplace in one. The process of filling a position is pretty generic - you could satisfy something like 90% of hirings with a standard process. Think of it like a series of boxes on a page. The choices are 'Do this myself' and 'outsource' this.

As the tasks get completed the next step happens, and the site manages the whole process.

The job seeker would not have to answer questions at each step of the way. The information would be saved in the system so that each person managing the step (whether internal or outsourced) can see the output from the previous step.

The steps are something like : write ad, sort responses, initial screening, organise interviews, interview, negotiate offers. The company would choose which of these they want to handle in-house, and which they want to outsource. You could come up with a few templates to cover a large proportion of hiring in industries.

Restricting access is just done with the same types of legal terms that existing recruitment agents use. The site would include a reputational factor, the same as any other online marketplace. So someone who wants to have a at-home job sorting through CVs isn't going to start leaking the information if they want to get more work from a client.

Ideally the jobs would be listed on the site itself, but there's no reason it can't be used to manage jobs that are listed on existing (and popular) sites. The idea would be to leverage the network effect of other sites while building a base of clients for the site itself. So initially listings would be on the site as well as other popular sites. Over time, a strategy would be devised to drive the popularity of the site itself as a place for jobseekers to find work.

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#67

Post by alttab »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #64
brc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, my disruption idea is to break the entire recruiting process into a value chain, and create little markets for each piece. So a company can list a position on the site (or maybe even on an existing site). But, instead of either a recruitment agency doing everything, or the company doing everything, they can break down the process and take bids on each step. So maybe one person is really good at sorting a pile o…

Who is going to glue all these pieces together? I think overhead of managing all these small steps would exceed time savings you get from outsourcing. Overhead would be in: 1) Teaching ALL participants about job to fill. 2) Dealing with job seeker's frustration when he would need to answer the same questions to different people in the process. 3) Restricting access to potentially sensitive personal information.

4) waiting on the right bids when you just need to hire someone.

5) Outsourcing the DNA of the company to the lowest bidder.

If your idea or your management team suck a recruiter can only do so much. Once you are worth your salt you can hire one full time recruiter and be done with it.

Recruiting is more important, not less important. Commoditizing it means you don't know how to build a company.

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#68

Post by dools »

Rodeoclash wrote: post #25

We're attempting to fix the way freelancers are recruited at agencies / startups by changing the pricing model. At the moment with recruiters, the incentive is to place as many people as quickly as possible as you get a commission for each placement. By changing the model to a subscription you can then open the market place up and make it very transparent. No more hiding peoples contact details from the employee, no…

Have you guys checked out recruitloop.com.au? They're on the same road: ie. changing the industry by changing the incentives (their's is an hourly pay model).

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#70

Post by dennisgorelik »

brc wrote: post #66
dennisgorelik wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is going to glue all these pieces together? I think overhead of managing all these small steps would exceed time savings you get from outsourcing. Overhead would be in: 1) Teaching ALL participants about job to fill. 2) Dealing with job seeker's frustration when he would need to answer the same questions to different people in the process. 3) Restricting access to potentially sensitive personal information.

The site manages the entire process. It's both workflow manager and marketplace in one. The process of filling a position is pretty generic - you could satisfy something like 90% of hirings with a standard process. Think of it like a series of boxes on a page. The choices are 'Do this myself' and 'outsource' this. As the tasks get completed the next step happens, and the site manages the whole process. The job seeker…

So every participant would have to read information accumulated in previous steps? That's your overhead right there.

If so many users access your information - how do you know who leaked your sensitive data?

Outsourcing such small pieces could make sense only to the web site itself (which is fast, cheap, secure and reliable) - not to external human players.

Traditionally humans tend to manage computers, not the other way around.

Post reply on HN