Given the long by default periods, and assuming the site works out, careers will have a huge number of uninterested CVs.

I don't know if this fits in your business plan, but I think a good way to avoid that problem while motivating the seekers to cooperate is to add a flag "Open for offers".

When the flag is selected, the CV is listed and the paid for time counts down. When the flag is not selected, the CV is no longer listed, but the paid for time doesn't count down. This should motivate people to go back and unmark "Open for offers" when they've found a job.

  • +1 That's a very good idea! – alex Oct 10 '09 at 5:47

This already exists. You simply hide your CV from employer searches, like so:

Your CV is searchable by employers; hide from searches

In answer to your other question, to keep things simple, the filing period is a fixed period of time starting from the date of filing, and ending when the filing period ends.

  • 1
    But that doesn't extend the period the CV will be valid in the site, does it? – Vinko Vrsalovic Oct 10 '09 at 8:57
  • I don't understand the question; hiding your CV from employers is the same as saying "I'm not looking for a job" – Jeff Atwood Oct 10 '09 at 9:43
  • Yes, the idea is to combine the hiding with an extension of the subscription. If you subscribe for a year, look for a job for 10 months, then hide the CV, you still have 2 months subscription in store, until you decide to show it again. This would be a motivation to hide it if you are not interested in receiving offers. As it is, people may be uninterested because they already have a job but have no incentive to hide it. – Vinko Vrsalovic Oct 10 '09 at 10:11
  • 2
    I kind of suspect this would create as many problems as it solves? Micro-optimizing your subscription period by rapidly turning it on and off? How do we show how much time is used and track that? I hear you, but my "this will create tons of support problems" spider sense is going off like CRAZY. – Jeff Atwood Oct 10 '09 at 10:19
  • 1
    Have big periods, and extend the subscription afterwards. Show the remaining subscription time in a new tab under your account. For example, if you hide it continuously for a week, the subscription period will be extended by that week, after the week is completed. This avoids many support problems while giving you the intended benefit. – Vinko Vrsalovic Oct 10 '09 at 10:35
  • 1
    I'm with Vinko here: just use big time periods. Something like a month at a time. That way it's easy to know how much time you have left and you're not tempted to micro-optimize. Right now you're building the entire site around a DB with a good signal to noise ratio for employers, and leaving this huge gaping hole for noise to get in. – Joel Coehoorn Nov 10 '09 at 21:52

So you found a job, then two months later someone else offers you 50% more money to do something more interesting than what you just found. But you turned it down because you "already found a job".

There seems to be this notion that you're getting ripped off if you're not actively seeking another job in the paid-for period. Honestly, if $9.67 a year (or $99 for that matter) is such a large amount of money to you then you probably shouldn't be considering subscribing to careers here yet.

So you found a position? Good for you. Unless it's your perfect job, in which case you'll be happy to write off the remaining subscription time because you'll never be looking again, it just means you're no longer actively seeking a new position. Now you're passive. Still there, not chasing hard, but open to exceptional opportunities. As you should be. As I am - not actively looking but prepared to consider particularly attractive opportunities.

$29 over the next three years will tell me if it's worth paying full rate thereafter, which is probably why it's priced that way.

  • And this is relevant how? You are totally missing the point here. The point is that if there are lots of people 'passively seeking' for new positions the site has a lot less value for those hiring. A good but not exceptional job would get lots of 'not interested now' answers from those with a good or an exceptional job. By providing more value to employers (via motivating job seekers to deactivate their CV), everybody benefits. – Vinko Vrsalovic Nov 10 '09 at 23:24
  • But you already can deactivate your CV (or at least remove it from visibility to employers). The question was about not wanting to pay when not actively looking, was it not? My point was that the money you're trying to save is, or should be, trivial, compared to the benefit accrued from a new job, and that if you're so careful with money that the accrual actually means something significant to you then you're probably not going to pay up in the first place! – Mike Woodhouse Nov 16 '09 at 10:35
  • The point is still missed. I'm not personally interested in saving money, I'm interested about providing a motivation, however small, to encourage CV deactivation to everybody. If you dismiss this motivation as too small, you are ignoring how irrational people usually are with respect to their economy, while encouraging the presence of noise in the site, which you probably don't feel is a problem either. – Vinko Vrsalovic Nov 30 '09 at 23:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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