Comments on: craigslist as a poor recruiting tool

By: adyourbanner » Blog Archive » Responses are cheap. Filters are expensive.

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:00:59 +0000

[...] here’s a post on the Cheezhead HR blog of special interest to us in the creative recruiting field. The summary: [...]

By: LDGrant

LDGrant — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:14:42 +0000

I’ve used craigslist and the Dragon Exchange (www.TheDragonExchange.com).

I always get tons of spam from the craigslist postings.

The Dragon Exchange gives you not only a private inbox, but also the ability to block certain members from ever contacting you again.

And as a recruiter, job applications are automatically placed in a folder for you to review.

I get more replies from craigslist, but most are spam. I may get fewer replies from the Dragon Exchange, but in the end, they are easier to manage and better qualified.

Both options however are less expensive than the major job boards which are out of our price range.

By: SmartBlog on Workforce » Blog Archive » This week’s most clicked

SmartBlog on Workforce » Blog Archive » This week’s most clicked — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:24:00 +0000

[...] Counting Craigslist’s shortcomings [...]

By: Silly

Silly — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:54:03 +0000

Timothy thanks so much for taking the poll of 25 recruiters in Seattle and letting us know that every single one thought craigslist was the best source for candidates. Ive been in the business for 5 years and know about 70 recruiters and cant find one that thinks craigslist is the “best source of candidiates”. But because of your poll, we plan to change the way to source candidates. Thanks so much. PS, when you say things like “every one” and “best source” we know you are either a complete moron or your name is Craig Newmark.

By: Timothy

Timothy — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:54:51 +0000

As a recruiter in the Seattle area who uses Craigslist, I would have to say that my experiences are totally contradictory to this article.

* Yes, we get a tidal wave of applications sometimes, but this wave will contain 10 to 20 times the number of qualified applicants in the first 24 hours than a month-long ad on the big three job boards.

* It takes only a few seconds to peruse the applications and see if the person is qualified (and if so, they get passed on to the hiring manager). Sure beats the weeks it can take to get one qualified applicant from Monster.

* I have never had to re-post an ad on Craigslist, as I always receive plentiful qualified applicants for my open positions.

* You don’t need to keep your confirmation emails from Craigslist. you just sign into your account and all your old ads are right there (although they have recently added a “search by date range” function).

* I have never had any technical problems with Craigslist.

I’m very curious which recruiters the author spoke to for this article, because it certainly wasn’t me or any of my colleagues. In fact, I just attended a recruiting forum the other day, and every one of the 25 people in the room agreed that Craigslist was the best source for finding new recruits.

By: Kristan

Kristan — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:34:23 +0000

Hmm, as someone about to post a job listing (or several), I appreciate this article! Sadly I had not even thought of listing on industry-specific sites… Thanks!

By: Johanne

Johanne — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:25:23 +0000

This post is quite revealing.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:18:35 +0000

There are Zero facts to back up this article written by a CraigsList competitor. This reads like a complete fluff piece based on what this guy probably heard from only a handful of people. I’m sure there are MANY more people who love Craigslist as a recruiting tool than those who feel it is a “poor recruiting tool”. Maybe the title should have been. Craigslist, a recruiting tool for the poor.

By: Jason Kerr

Jason Kerr — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:13:29 +0000

Yep, just more proof perhaps that recruitment is backwards, and the days of “Open Casting Calls” (job postings) are coming to an end.

Currently you post a job; applicants decide if they want to apply, and recruiters decide which applicants they want to interview.

A more efficient system would be one where perhaps recruiters could instantly identify who they wanted to interview, and candidates could decide if they wanted to attend.

The problem with this has always been in getting a sufficient number of applicants to make that model (matching) work – however in this market, attracting numbers of applicants is no longer an issue.

The real question for the future may be not “who will be left standing” at the end of this recruitment slump, but perhaps “what (model) will be left standing”.

By: TonyLee

TonyLee — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:51:21 +0000

I want to add that the impetus for my column was the negative feedback I’ve been hearing since late fall from companies attempting to recruit on Craigslist. While it’s true that @30% of Adicio-powered client sites are newspapers, @70% are niche sites targeting candidates by their functional or industry expertise, and they report continued success despite the downturn given the very targeted, qualified nature of the applicants they’re providing to their recruiting clients.

There’s no single “right way” to source qualified applicants. But the perception that free is best – or at least should be included any time a job needs to be filled – is the fallacy I’m addressing in this column.