What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

Some candidates come up many times in searches on Stack Overflow Careers. Once I've read the candidate's CV and decided not to contact them, or interviewed them and decided that they are not right for us, I don't want to see that candidate again unless something changes (e.g. my job spec changes, or the candidate's CV does).

Please provide an [Evaluated, don't see again] button that lets me say I don't want to look at that candidate's CV in future until it changes. Please also provide a way for me to see previously evaluated & blocked candidates in searches (I would use this if my job spec changed).

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

Speaking as an employee candidate on the careers site, I'd be pretty saddenned if you rejected me outright and never saw me turn up again in search results. What if I made major changes to my CV that might cause you to change your mind? What if your needs changed and suddenly I become a more suitable match?

I'd prefer if you were only able to automatically ignore candidates for a certain amount of time, say a few weeks, so I wouldn't clutter up your search results in the short term, but still allow you to have another look at me later on.

share|improve this answer
5  
There's only one first impression –  jmfsg Mar 2 '10 at 20:43
9  
@Ether:Or even better, ignore that user until he changes its CV. Just like answers here in SOFUM You can't change your vote, until the question is edited. –  OscarRyz Mar 2 '10 at 20:49
    
@Downvoter: perhaps, but that's for the recruiter to decide. I'm trying to make the case that the site has less value for me, a paying user, if it is easy for recruiters to ignore me. –  Ether Mar 2 '10 at 20:50
1  
@Ether: If the search is too annoying for the recruiters and they stop using Career how much value has the site then for you? –  Ladybug Killer Mar 2 '10 at 21:44
1  
@John: fair enough. Perhaps we can find some middle ground so that no one is annoyed too much. I like Oscar's idea of a CV change flushing the "ignore" flag. –  Ether Mar 2 '10 at 21:45
    
+1 to change flushing ignore. Editing to reflect this. Don't want to reject candidates forever (well, not in all cases anyway) just not see the same ones over and over when I know they are not suitable (in some cases, because I've interviewed them and they didn't pass our tests!) –  Douglas Squirrel Mar 3 '10 at 7:55

So...

What you're asking for...

Is a way to block candidates...

That so perfectly match your search parameters...

That they come up every time...

???

scratches head

It's not that it's an unreasonable request, it just seems that perhaps the problem isn't with the candidate. Have you considered narrowing your search down? Obviously the search is including people you don't want - can you identify why they aren't suitable and change your search to match?

If careers doesn't have the capability to hone your search so finely, then it's hardly living up to its promise of great developers for great jobs. Suggest a feature change that allows you to search more effectively, leaving out those that don't fit your criteria.

That being said...


I can see a need for an employer to mark a CV as, "Have already evaluated, please do not allow back into any search results for 6 months." It's not a bad mark, it just simplifies the hiring manager's process. Yes, he fits our criteria, but no, he is not a good fit for the job based on things in his resume or SO portfolio that we've evaluated.

So, yes, I agree with having this feature, and no - I don't think there's a good reason to let candidates know that their resumes was evaluated and excluded from future searches. It unnecessarily complicates things.

share|improve this answer
4  
Unfortunately search for employers is keyword only, and this is very limiting. For example I can't search for EU citizens, or people with master's degrees (requirement for UK immigration at present). So a candidate may match all my keywords but not actually qualify. In other cases, we've seen the candidate for interview and she's failed the coding tests - so the CV is perfect and will keep showing up, but we know the candidate isn't for us. I like the time limit or the idea above of a change flushing the ignore flag. I'll edit the request to reflect this & give a better name than "reject". –  Douglas Squirrel Mar 3 '10 at 7:54
    
@Douglas: Sounds like you need a better search function in addition to marking individuals as evaluated. –  XMLbog Mar 3 '10 at 12:13
3  
@Douglas - Please open new feature requests for better searching. I think having a searcheable right-to-work and citizenship and level of education would be important to add. –  Adam Davis Mar 3 '10 at 12:30

+1 I think that's fair as long as the blocked user get some kind of notification:

Profile blocked by N users

That should at least give the candidate subtle hint, there's something wrong with its CV

share|improve this answer
7  
I don't see why the user should be notified of anything. A lack of job offers would be hint enough. Telling them that an employer blocked them tells them nothing, but makes them think their CV is bad when it could be any number of reasons why they're ignored. –  Brandon Mar 2 '10 at 21:41
    
I'm pretty sure I'm being rejected because they found out I can't spell "unnecessarily" correctly without a spell checker. –  Adam Davis Mar 2 '10 at 22:10
    
@Brandon - agreed there are many reasons to turn down that have nothing to do with quality of applicant - may just not have enough experience or the right citizenship for a particular job. That said, if candidates want to see a count of "people who saw me but didn't want to talk to me for some reason" that's fine with me as an employer. –  Douglas Squirrel Mar 3 '10 at 7:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .