Along the way I have discovered that it is a rare recruiter who really is connected and has the trust of their clients. As a job seeker it is nearly impossible to tell if the recruiter is qualified or not. One clear sign for me is the way the job brief is written.

I would not waste my time applying to the first one for I cannot be sure that it is a real job or if a recruiter fishing. If a recruiter did not place it then it is a company that did not value the future employee enough to spend the effort to consider what the role would entail. I would consider applying to that job the equivalent of chucking my CV into black hole.

The second one I would notice and spend time researching to find out more information. If it was through a recruiter and not through the company directly then I would make sure it was NOT a contingency search before applying. Again it would be a circular file for my CV.

Directly for the company I would try to find out as much information as I can about the company. One critical bit would be if they use keyword scanning. To deal with this is to completely write the CV for scanning. You all know the story of the plastic surgeon’s CV that was submitted by HR for a military recruitment for a contractor. He had the education, the language skills, had prior military experience as a young man and had performed “SPECIAL OPERATIONS”.

Frankly something is wrong with the entire system. Hiring managers feel they are not getting the talent they are looking for. Candidates cannot tell if a job is a good fit or not. Decent manners have become a rarity. Everybody loses.

But I think we’re discussing from different angles, as you say ! Although I’d still argue that for a recruiter, the battle is between pulling people in with relevant content with your ad vs still leaving candidates intrigued enough to pick up the phone to ask more questions. Give too much away, and you risk a few candidates passing on by!

From a jobseekers perspective though, you look at title, money, location, company, skills needed. So in that respect – love your blog post !!!

Also, from a personal point of view, I can’t bear the pre-qual questions; lazy recruitment!!

1. The ‘bad job ad’ can be found on our website. Someone has written this, ‘off-spec’ or not. This was not the worst example, either.

2. The ‘good’ advert (which can also be found on our site) may well have been copied and pasted from an original spec (it’s not my spec), but does it matter? As you say, it is neat & tidy but more importantly it draws the reader in and gets them to ‘buy’ the information.

This article is about optimising quality application results (rather than inviting any Tom/Dick/Harry to apply), so if in making a spec longer it guarantees a ‘better fit’, who cares?

Re search engines: I used the ‘good advert’ as an example of how to pull in jobseekers with searchable terms. For the role, it contains all these.

Whilst I agree less can definitely be more – especially in marketing – I do not agree that restricting the ad to a set number of words has more impact. This can be made in the headline/intro without compromising important information. Is there room, for example, in 200 words to tell the reader about the company and benefits – equally as important to most as the role itself?

Also to note (and perhaps I should have explained in the post) this piece is about finding a job via a job board, not through punching ‘online advertising manager’ into Google. SEO in that regard is a different subject/article.

Your example of a bad advert, is an example of trying too hard to write off spec, and certainly doesn’t contain anything of any relevance.

I make no claim to these thoughts being original, but what I have learnt from industry specialists. But the best way of getting your advert noticed by the right people, before your competitors find them, is to optimise the ability of your advert rising to the top of search engines and having an immediate impact when someone does land on it.