Administered by:
@kkarhan@infosec.space@mircoxi it should not be a fineable offense, because a fine means it's only illegal for small/"poor" corporations.
- This should be a #felony akin to false #accounting statements, since they are done for the same reason: '#LyingWithNumbers' aka. "#LineGoesUp"!
It's the #HR equivalent [www.youtube.com] of #MarkToMarketAccounting...
- They should be obligated to fill an advertised vacancy and evidence it!
@SynAck@corteximplant.com@kkarhan @mircoxi Having worked for one of those job boards for nearly 6 years, those sites have a vested interest in not cracking down on those "fake jobs" because most of those jobs are priced as click generators, not by cost per application. So as long as someone keeps paying to advertise them, the job boards will keep making them available and the volume is high enough that they're not going to check them to see if they're still valid.
There is a fair (but small) percentage of jobs that stick around to get advertised even after they're expired due to the incestuous nature of job ad sharing between various digital outlets and since, again, there's no verification that the job is actually still valid, they don't get taken down unless the advertiser themselves complain about it. The sheer volume (we were processing 350M+ ads every day) makes it nearly impossible to do efficiently.
And the saddest thing is hearing our own HR crew defend these "ghost jobs" (or "evergreen" jobs, in HR parlance) as an acceptable thing just goes to show how absolutely broken the job advertisement and HR spaces have become.
@kkarhan@infosec.space- Those things are clearly fraudulent in their intentions [infosec.space] even tho said setups ain't criminalized...
@kkarhan@infosec.spaceCEO Voice I know... [www.youtube.com]
- THAT IS LITERALLY THE PROBLEM!
Everyone but the applicants profit from a #market overflowing with #GhostJobs and #fake #vacancies because they act as means to pressure #staff, #lie to #investors re: #growith and siphon off #PII of #candidates...
@SynAck@kkarhan @mircoxi And that's mainly because those job sites have bought into the "lifetime value" bullshit of all the other sites, so their goal is either to keep you on the site or coming back to it as long as possible, or make sure you come back when you next look for a job.
The problem is, this is in direct conflict with their stated purpose of "helping workers find jobs" and striving for the "golden ratio": one search, one click, one application, and one hire. If they actually do that, they don't make any money. So all of them are lying to you just to keep you engaging with the website.
Honestly, that's why I stopped engaging with them entirely. The last round of interviews I've gotten has all been through person-to-person recruiters because those people have a very vested interest in getting me hired if they put me up for a position.
@kkarhan@infosec.space@SynAck @mircoxi yeah, same for me, because their "min/max-ing" is closer aligned to my interest as they want to minimize time wasted and maximize their comission which is proprotionalvto the agreed-upon paycheck...
- Still, a #honest #Jobsearch / #Hiring site that demands way more #DueDiligence re: #vacancies is overdue...
Problem is who's gonna foot the bill, cuz neither candidates nor recruiters are willing to pay for it!
@SynAck@kkarhan The real problem with that system is that making a seeker-focused system that actually only presents valid jobs is a very hard and expensive problem to solve. The insane amounts of volume that those systems process every day means that any "validity" checking would make the system too slow to keep up with the demand.
Just to give you some examples from the place I was at:
- the system ingested, transformed, and deduplicated 350M+ jobs per day and the system was never idle
- roughly 10% turned out to be eligible for advertisement at any given time, so around 35M (which included duplicates at different price points)
- the system generated customized feeds for maybe 100 affiliates, that ranged in size from just a few hundred jobs to 10s of millions
- Search latency needed to be below 200ms response time
- 35M search requests per day, or just over 1B requests per month
So, adding in user-specified criteria for validity based on the search results would take entirely too long to verify each result when jobs could "go away" for a myriad of any reason at any time.
It's just easier to refund money to advertisers for "overspend" on bupkis jobs than it is to never show them or filter them out in the first place.
@SynAck@kkarhan So the cost is mainly for the infrastructure required to do the filtering on both ends of that equation, and that is a very significant bill. So yeah, the question is who's going to pay for that?
Like you said, certainly not the seeker and not a recruiter. So somebody's gotta pay for the infrastructure for that kind of volume, and that means that the corpos fight it out and leave the seekers holding the bag.
@kkarhan@infosec.space@SynAck and certainly hand-curating jobs or having harsh ToS (demanding DMCA-like certification if correctnes undee penalty) that have actual teeth (harsh fines and public bans of recruiters if not their firms) will likely result in exorbitant costs and/or recruiters say "Fuck That!" and just stay in #LinkedIn, #StepStone, #XING, #Monster, etc.
@SynAck@kkarhan exactly. But LinkedIn is also in that space as well, and they're both a direct and indirect advertiser. Your best bet these days is human contact - a recruiter, former co-workers, people in your network, friends.
The automated sites are complete trash now and are mainly just bots talking to bots while real people suffer. The sites care about 3 customers in the following order: advertisers, affiliates/publishers, job seekers. Everything is done to placate those first two because that's where the money comes from; seekers are just the grease product to power the flywheel.
@kkarhan@infosec.space@SynAck nodds in agreement