![]() ![]() As with other issues, I will get back to my Account Manager at LinkedIn, but when you report matters like these, it seems like the monopolist reflex is simply to ignore them, which is quite sad. If I run this one, and then run three separate queries “x AND y AND z AND a”, “x AND y AND z AND b”, “x AND y AND z AND c”, the results are completely different. In my case, I typically use a query like “x AND y AND z AND (a OR b OR c)”. Isn’t it a bit absurd that a product which boasts sophisticated algorithms to reach candidates, can’t even deal with simple boolean logic? And it looks like a bad joke if somebody just says “oh, you shouldn’t use more than 5 operators”? Where did that come from? Or why don’t you get a message when you try more operators? And the help documentation claims that Boolean works.Īs users of the (expensive) LinkedIn Recruiter license with its possibility to do a deep search in the whole network with keywords, we are also shocked to see that the Boolean search does not work. ![]() If so, it has been implemented in odd ways, either intentionally (built into the algorithm) or unintentionally (bugs), as seen from just these two examples above. I am only guessing and there is a chance I might be wrong, meaning that it is not bugs, and now searching in keywords on is heavily restricted on purpose. Before one of us figures it out (guesses are welcome! but it is not fixed by different syntax) or before it is magically fixed, expect your people search results to be imprecise. If we could guess the underlying mechanism, we could develop workarounds (as I have shared on this blog before). ![]() The bad news is that, for now, we do not understand how exactly the search is broken. So it seems to be an unintentional code change. Why would LinkedIn want this? They could have set the expectations. You can see from the multiple comments that many have had a negative experience with search.This was such big news around FB because nobody has heard this, while there should be a promotion.There is nothing about it in the documentation.There is no “please upgrade” sign, just the wrong results.There are additional “circumstantial” signs (I watch a lot of British TV!) that it is not that LinkedIn wants us all to buy LinkedIn Recruiter by intentionally restricting search on : There are other examples and variations of keyword searches that look odd shared in the two LinkedIn and Facebook streams above. Why is the first one not working? I think, it is a bug (or bugs). There are no Boolean operators in these searches. blending david galley – one result (as it should be.).david galley blending– currently no results (wrong).Here is an example to prove my point: David Galley has the keyword “blending” in the About section of his profile. It sounded like something Recruiters expect of LinkedIn, to be pushed into higher-paid products.īut I believe that what we are experiencing with NOT is not intentional (which means there is a disconnect between some managers and developers at LinkedIn we have observed it before.) The unhappy “news” flew around various Facebook groups. In the LinkedIn thread, we heard from a LinkedIn manager that the keyword search in (including the business accounts) is not “Boolean” and should be used to find people you know. Some suggested changing the syntax – but neither extra parentheses, quotation marks, nor the minus instead of NOT help. My share of “what is going on here?” on Facebook got 2.5K+ views and reactions on LinkedIn – 41K+ views and climbing! Most commenters complained about intermittently seeing this too. Then I saw weird results without the NOT, but the NOT “deficiencies” was easier to illustrate on social media. What is going on here? The operator NOT did not exclude – even highlighted – the word “recruitment.” I started running into this phenomenon a few weeks ago, but the output seemed random: sometimes, NOT was acknowledged, sometimes, ignored. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |