Seek and Facebook

[Moz]

Seek have launched a Facebook group and application and are encouraging job seekers to join their Facebook group with the lure of prizes.

For those who don't know, Facebook is one of those popular social networking sites where you can spend an unbelievable amount of time doing nothing particularly useful.

Given that you can search for jobs on Seek through their Facebook group, it would be interesting to know which applications came via the Facebook group. This way you could get an idea which applicants are likely to waste their time on social networking applications when they are at work

[cam]

I've had a look at this, i feel like seek is pimping me for advertising space. The lure of viral marketing over social networking sites makes any CEO's mouth water but I don't think the job boards are cool enough to have your name attached to.

[tshaw]

ahgggg! I opened up my facebook today, and saw the smaller slimline ads.

I am not a fan of it, but at least facebook are making some money off it.

[CSheahan]

I guess whether you think facebook is a time waster or not, it shows that companies are getting more creative in their search for potential candidates and fishing where the fish are! I think there will be increasing activity of this nature on the social network sites on the horizon.

[Lance]

I find it quite ironic that the majority of companies block most of the social networking sites from their servers, yet they identify them as potential recruitment sites? "We'll recruit you from there, but once you work for us, don't go there?"

"This way you could get an idea which applicants are likely to waste their time on social networking applications when they are at work"

Moz, I'm sure that your comment was at least partly tounge in cheek, but it is unfortunate that this attitude exists about a lot of the web 2.0 technologies. Yes FaceBook is primarily utilised as a time waster, but there are a lot of social networking sites out there that have tremendous training applications, yet the hype around them has them tagged as time wasters so they are blocked.

Talk to anyone in e-learning and you'll find this as being one of the main frustrations.

[Moz]

Lance, yes it was partly tongue in cheek

I'm not so sure the majority of companies identify social networking sites as potential recruitment sites. I would say at this stage it's a minority. At a company level I suspect most don't really know what social networking sites are, and they certainly don't know what "web 2.0" is, partly because they didn't know there was a "web 1.0" and partly because no-one seems to be able to agree what "web 2.0" actually means!

I don't think it's unreasonable at all for companies to block access to sites such as Facebook, particularly if they are seeing lots of people accessing Facebook during core business hours. At the end of the day they are paying people to work, not to goof around on some social web site.

The job boards certainly think they need to get involved with social networking, but for Seek I suspect it's just a bit of insurance against the newer entries to the job board scene. I'm not so sure the users of sites like Facebook appreciate the influx of corporate advertising. Facebook users I know go to there to connect with their "friends", not to look for a job.

I'd be interested to know what social networking sites have "tremendous training applications" (seriously).

[Lance]

Hi Moz

A slight misunderstanding here: what I meant was that the majority of companies block social networking sites, but they (the sites) are now being identified as recruitment spaces, even if only by the minority. Poorly worded on my part: Apologies.

As for web 2.0, you are correct, there are many definitions and most people are unaware this term. As you said, "web 2.0? I didn't know there was a web 1.0!". I get the impression that you are aware of it, but for other readers of this post who may not, it generally refers to the increase levels of interactivity, with the user moving from passive reading to collaboration and involvement. As Stephen Fry put it, Web 2.0 is "an idea in people's heads rather than a reality. It’s actually an idea that the reciprocity between the user and the provider is what's emphasized. In other words, genuine interactivity if you like, simply because people can upload as well as download".
Video interview: http://www.videojug.com/interview/stephen-fry-web-20 (assuming of course that you can access this from a work computer - its blocked here)

It is this interactivity that allows training applications. Trainee blogs (used as an online developmental diary) can become part of the assessment criteria. Students/trainees/learners (call them what you will) who are involved in distance education (or shift work) can collaborate on work via wikis; systems such as ustream and eluminate allow for presentations that participants can be involved in rather than being passive viewers. Sites like Ning allow individuals or organisations to establish "communities" which incorporate many features without needing extensive programming knowledge. Podcast allow the delivery of a variety of information, from training material to management memos, to staff who are not based "on site". Sites such as Second Life are being touted as "the next big thing" in training delivery by its advocates, especially since the introduction of speech capabilities (I'm not 100% sold on this theory, but will suspend judgement and watch what happens in this area with interest). Depending on your needs, there is more than likely something out there that could be of use.

Of course, I am biased, as I am involved in e-learning development. I do subscribe to the view that just because its new doesn't mean it is better, but also belive that just because its new, it shouldn't immediately be discounted. It all depends on how it is used: there needs to be purpose behind the use of the technology. "Because its there" is not a valid business case to justify its use. There was a time, in the not so distant past when it was believed that the net was just a passing fad, and there was little or no value in technologies such as message boards. (sweeping statement, but based on conversations held within my organisiation when we first moved into online delivery of training. At the time there was the on-line vs multi-media (cd based) debate going on).

Finally, I agree with you, I also do not see it as unreasonable for companies to block sites like FaceBook. As I said, it is primarily a time waster (from a corporate sense). My point was that there are other systems out there that are being tarred with the same brush that are of potential value.

The same could be said for general web access: jump on many of our manager's computers and look at the history bar in IE and you will invariably find the asx, realestate.com, or, during summer, "baggygreen.com" (cricket updates).

Like so many things, it’s the utilisation of the technologies that brings them into disrepute, not the technologies themselves.

Cheers

Lance.