I had been using social networks for recruiting for couple of years now and most of the (Corporate) recruiters I speak have hardly used it. This might be opposite to agency recruiters who always had embraced social network. After working all sides (Agency, Headhunting, Corporate -as a Researcher and recruiter) the only reason I see was the lack of time. Most corporate recruiters are so much buried in administrative process, there 30 + requisitions, there ATS and I will be surprised if they even get time to look at the job boards. Social Networks are really far them there reach if there daily routine is not heavily automized.
Saying that I wasn't surprised by the Research conducted by Cranfield School of Management in association with Personnel Today on a survey from 582 senior HR and recruitment managers around the UK (YES ITS UK) says that
"Web 2.0 Revolution Has Not Yet Hit Recruiters"
How about in US?
For the complete Article:-
Recruiters are not taking advantage of Web 2.0 technology according to a new report out today from Cranfield School of Management. Despite the recent hype about the possibilities of Web 2.0, only 10 per cent of recruiters use social networking sites and only a small minority use blogs, videos or other web 2.0 technology for recruitment. Private sector organisations were significantly more likely to use social networking sites for recruitment than public sector organisations.
Web 2.0 provides the opportunity for organisations to differentiate their recruitment site from more traditional sites with interactivity, allowing control and input from the candidate and providing information in a variety of formats such as video, audio, graphics and text, as well as using social networking sites such as Linked-In or Facebook to communicate with job seekers. It offers recruiters the ability to engage with job seekers in a way that could prove valuable within the current “war for talent”. So why are recruiters not embracing this new technology?
“One of the reasons why social networks have been slow to take off as a recruitment tool might be because recruiters do not consider them as a credible way to communicate, despite the fact that large numbers of their target labour market use them regularly” says Dr Emma Parry, Research Fellow at Cranfield School of Management.
“Recruiters may be missing a trick at the moment by not adopting Web 2.0 technology. Organisations need to engage with job seekers in order to encourage them to apply for their jobs. Text-heavy recruitment pages with no interactivity will not win the hearts and minds of the Web 2.0 generation. Customising the recruitment process and using innovative channels to reach out to job seekers may be the way to find the talent that your organisation needs”.
Of the 10 per cent of organisations that used social networking sites for recruitment, they were most likely to use Linkedin (63 per cent), Facebook (39 per cent) or Myspace (21 per cent). Just under half of the organisations that use social networking sites contact potential employees directly via these sites while just under a third have a company page on a social networking site.
Organisations that use social networking for recruitment most commonly do so in order to expand the reach of their recruitment followed by the need to attract employees that fit with the values and culture of the organisation or to build a relationship with employees that are already interested in the company. Just under a third (of this 10 per cent) use social networking sites to check up on potential employees.
More commonly used for recruitment are search engines with over a quarter of organisations using sites such as Google (75 per cent), Yahoo (33 per cent) and MSN (just under a quarter).
"Top 50 companies have clarity of their absolute values of human dignity, demonstrating a global adherence to these core beliefs. These sustainable values drive margin," said Luke Visconti, partner and cofounder of DiversityInc.
Wonderful!!... but does this make sense? when most of the people tell me that the diverse population is filled with/for low end or middle management.The 2008 Top 50 List
1. Verizon Communications
26. Wells Fargo & Co.
2. The Coca-Cola Co.
27. Ford Motor Co.
3. Bank of America
28. PepsiCo
4. PricewaterhouseCoopers
29. Pepsi Bottling Group
5. Procter & Gamble
30. Xerox Corp.
6. Cox Communications
31. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
7. Merrill Lynch & Co.
32. General Mills
8. Johnson & Johnson
33. KeyBank
9. IBM
34. Health Care Service Corp.
10. American Express
35. Sprint
11. Marriott International
36. Disney Co.
12. Sodexo
37. Abbott
13. JPMorgan Chase
38. Accenture
14. Wachovia
39. Macy's
15. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida
40. Henry Ford Health System
16. Deloitte
41. Bright Horizons Family Solutions
17. Ernst & Young
42. WellPoint
18. HSBC Bank USA, NA
43. Kaiser Permanente
19. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide
44. General Motors
20. Cummins
45. Citigroup
21. Merck & Co.
46. Capital One Financial Co.
22. AT&T
47. CSX
23. Turner Broadcasting System
48. Toyota Motor North America
24. Prudential Financial
49. KPMG
25. Monsanto Co.
50. Hilton Hotels Corp.
Article Title: Psst, Hey Buddy... Wanna Hot Job?
Author Byline: America's #1 Recruiter
Author Website: http://www.tonybeshara.com/tips/hot-job/
Job search advice is almost as plentiful as weight loss solutions these days, it seems – and just as effective. Books, newspaper columns, radio shows, web articles, blogs, and career sites are just some of the places offering their wisdom. In the last week, I read competing articles on two of the largest web portals that listed “myths” about job searches. Several myths were in both articles, and on two of those, the authors had opposing answers – basically, one said “Do this,” and the other said “Don't do this.”
How can I tell you to not believe most of what you hear or read about finding a job? Why should you believe me instead? Tough question. I think the answer lies in the fact that I give you tough answers. Almost all of the books, articles, etc., I’ve read have some meaningful tidbits, but most are sugarcoated beyond recognition. They are really just “feel good” books – “you’re out of work, but gosh, haven’t I made you feel good! Come back again / Buy my next book!”
Yes, I want traffic to this site, and I have a successful book out and another on the way, but I not going to pander to your anxiety to wring money from your purse. I’m going to tell you like it is – getting a good job is tough. It requires hours of work and practice. It takes dedication and persistence. You have to eat rejection like it was cotton candy. Use common sense – if getting a good job was easy, or fun, or something that had no stress or frustration, everyone would have good jobs. Here are a few clues that you might be getting worthless advice:
* Does the author/speaker seem tooyoung to have significant real world experience? I’ve seen authors who couldn’t have had more than a couple of jobs themselves giving others advice.
* Do they offer “interviewing tricks,” or “killer resume formats” or some such “special knowledge” that they have somehow discovered? I cover these topics, but there is nothing special about my answers – except that they’re right.
* Do they rationalize why you do not have to work as hard, or be as error-free, or pay attention to all of the details? Feels good, doesn’t it? The world is full of worthless things that feel good.
* Do they minimize the role of the face-to-face interviews?
Amazingly, I’ve read job search strategies that focused on sending out resumes. 95% of all hires happen because the employee asked the employer for the job in person, to their face. The other 5% were hired when the employer asked the employee to come work for the company. Rarely do these authors have personal experience finding people jobs every day. I've read and studied at least 200 books, articles, and web sites from universities, technical colleges, "job/career coaches," and other sources that claim expertise – most of what they write just isn't true. Their ideas might seem plausible in theory, and almost certainly make you feel good about what you’ve been doing in your search so far, but the practical application of most of their advice will lead your job search astray.
I've been placing candidates from all professions and trades in good jobs since 1973 - more than 7,000 people in that time. I have resumes from more than 90,000 other people who I was not able to help. Why? Because in my profession, I find people for jobs, I don’t find jobs for people. I'm not paid unless my clients hire those people I find, so for many years I have been teaching my candidates how to make my clients hire them. I’ve gotten very good at it.
Yes, there is some good job search advice available, but most is not. Check out the author’s credentials – do they have real world experience? If you finish reading their advice and aren’t thinking, “Whew, I have my work cut out for me,” it was probably worthless advice.
If you liked this article the rest only get better. Go Pro now and get access to all of the advice I have to offer!
Ask for personal advice from Tony, the #1 recruiter according to the industry's leading journal, The Fordyce Letter: www.tonybeshara.com/asktony/
Article courtesy of the Recruiting Blogswap, a content exchange service sponsored by CollegeRecruiter.com, a leading site for college students looking for internships and recent graduates searching for entry level jobs and other career opportunities
A visual search engine with results primarily in a visual format(of course) with an image of the site. Are you a fan of Apple? Then this site might look familiar as the results are displayed in a way that is similar to browsing through albums in iTunes.
They say that there server holds/indexed about 1 billion + pages which is nothing compared to Yahoo claiming 20 Billions pages. More than that it reminded me of an application I downloaded sometime back called spacetime..
The difference is spacetime does much more stuff than Searchme... more on spacetime later...
Searching on Searchme...
Logging in gives you a clean page with a black background, 
Which is the night theme and can be changed to white-day Theme.
A simple keyword search like software developer will lead you to many pages but nothing on resumes.
Boolean doesn't works so adding more keywords is the only way for filtering what you looking for.
I input "software developer resume j2ee" and voila it brings me a lot of resumes. Choosing the work & career category didn't help me much.
Check out the video belong to see its working on what I did...![]()
Is it worth checking out? .. yes ...
Is it a good source for resumes?..,.. nah don't think so as the engine is till at very infant and will take time to grow.
A great engine if you like visual learning or scroll below to see the actual links.
Don't forget to check out spacetime.. I am sure they won't be happy to see this product as a search Engine.

Linkedin Recruiter
Did you see the new Linkedin Recruiter.. Its being couple of years I am using Linkedin but the Corporate solutions for recruiters blew me off. The redesigned Linkedin has a lot of potential and a lot to offer.
20 million + users and growing; Linkedin has upgraded their candidate search feature. Recruiters with Linkedin Recruiter can view up to 1,000 search results instead of the 500 available in other accounts.
Logging takes you to the dashboard which is different from the Linkedin Outlook toolbar dashboard which most of us have. On the left side it shows my ongoing projects,my job postings, searches and search history letting me pull up any old searches I have done. On the middle of my screen has the Usage Information and status of Inmails and Alerts.

Many of the features reminds me of zoominfo where in you can create and save projects. You can share these projects(the profiles your saved or sourced) with your other recruiting team members.
The best feature I liked was the search alerts. You can now save the searches you are doing on Linkedin and have you alert when a new match is found as long as you keep the search alert ON. 
Other features include adding the profile to clipboard and saving profiles to the projects and batching the Inmails together instead of writing one by one.
Great work- Linkedin developers.
E-Verify is a voluntary program run by the United States government to help certify that employees hired by companies are not in the country illegally.
The program is operated by the Department of Homeland Security in partnership with the Social Security Administration.
Since the pilot project which started with 500 companies in 5 states it has grown to more than 53,000 employers who have signed up to participate in E-Verify, which was announced by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The program has been growing by approximately 1,000 new employers each week since last October 07.
With an increased data sources feeding into E-Verify and start of using photos to help verify the authenticity of employee's documentation. It's also working on regulations to require the approximately 200,000 federal contractors to use the system. Currently about 24,000 employers use it voluntarily.
Starting the week of Mar. 1, federal fines imposed on employers who hire undocumented migrants goes up from 2,200 for first offense, and up to $10,000 after that— will rise by 25%. man oh Man..![]()
SHRM asserts that it is inefficient, ineffective and prone to error.ummmmmmm but I am sure we will be hearing more about it and not only federal but more and more private companies would start using it in coming days.
Tech Wages Hit Highest Level in Seven Years but Growth Quickly Slows
Hourly wages for highly-skilled technology professionals reached an all-time high during the fourth quarter of 2007, and though growth slowed sequentially at the end of the year, it still remained ahead of 2006. The average hourly wage for high-impact technology workers was recorded at $32.39 during October, the highest average pay figure documented by the Yoh Index of Technology Wages since its inception in 2001.
However, reflecting the economy's slowdown in late 2007, average wages dropped $0.88 in November from October. Similarly, while average wages had experienced a 7.1% increase in September, they were followed by 5.7% growth in October, and 3.4% improvement in November and December, when compared to the same months in 2006.
"Despite sequentially slower growth at the end of 2007, we continue to see solid wage growth year-over-year, and remain cautiously optimistic for the technology and professional job market in 2008," says Jim Lanzalotto, Vice President of Strategy and Marketing for Yoh. "Weaknesses from other sectors of the economy may have permeated here and caused the decline, but customer demand is still strong; project backlogs are still full; and there are no signs that works in progress will be abandoned."
The Yoh Index of Technology Wages reached a high of 115.96 in October 2007, when indexed to January 2001 (1/2001 = 100), indicating a 5.7% increase in wage growth, when compared with the same period in 2006.
Trends in Technology Wages: January 2001 – Present
Yoh began indexing pay rates in the technology sectors in January 2001. The technology wage market experienced an unstable year in 2001 and then fell dramatically after September 11. Wages experienced another up-and-down year in 2002, but were then up slightly in 2004, as compared to 2003. In 2005 and 2006, tech wages consistently outpaced national trends. In 2007, wages started out strong and continued to grow, reaching an all time high of 115.96 during the fourth quarter of 2007, but growth slowed at the end of the year.
The Yoh Index of Technology Wages presents a current view of the changes in employer demand and supply of technology workers nationwide. Indexed to January 2001, the Yoh Index of Technology Wages was first introduced in January 2003 and is released quarterly.