Tuesday, March 19, 2024
HomeRetirementSearch Is Damaged on LinkedIn – NOT, AND

Search Is Damaged on LinkedIn – NOT, AND


What’s going on right here? The operator NOT didn’t exclude – even highlighted – the phrase “recruitment.” I began operating into this phenomenon just a few weeks in the past, however the output appeared random: typically, NOT was acknowledged, typically, ignored. Then I noticed bizarre outcomes with out the NOT, however the NOT “deficiencies” was simpler for example on social media.

My share of “what’s going on right here?” on Fb obtained 2.5K+ views and reactions; on LinkedIn – 41K+ views and climbing! Most commenters complained about intermittently seeing this too. Some urged altering the syntax – however neither further parentheses, citation marks, nor the minus as a substitute of NOT assist.

Within the LinkedIn thread, we heard from a LinkedIn supervisor that the key phrase search in LinkedIn.com (together with the enterprise accounts) just isn’t “Boolean” and needs to be used to seek out folks you understand. The sad “information” flew round varied Fb teams. It appeared like one thing Recruiters anticipate of LinkedIn, to be pushed into higher-paid merchandise.

However I consider that what we’re experiencing with NOT just isn’t intentional (which implies there’s a disconnect between some managers and builders at LinkedIn; we now have noticed it earlier than.)

Right here is an instance to show my level: David Galley has the key phrase “mixing” within the About part of his profile. Examine these searches:

There are not any Boolean operators in these searches. They need to be equivalent. Why is the primary one not working? I feel, it’s a bug (or bugs). There are different examples and variations of key phrase searches that look odd shared within the two LinkedIn and Fb streams above.

There are further “circumstantial” indicators (I watch quite a lot of British TV!) that it isn’t that LinkedIn needs us all to purchase LinkedIn Recruiter by deliberately proscribing search on LinkedIn.com:

  1. There isn’t any “please improve” signal, simply the mistaken outcomes
  2. There may be nothing about it within the documentation
  3. This was such large information round FB as a result of no person has heard this, whereas there needs to be a promotion.
  4. You possibly can see from the a number of feedback that many have had a unfavourable expertise with search. Why would LinkedIn need this? They might have set the expectations.

So it appears to be an unintentional code change. The unhealthy information is that, for now, we don’t perceive how precisely the search is damaged. If we might guess the underlying mechanism, we might develop workarounds (as I have shared on this weblog earlier than). Earlier than one in every of us figures it out (guesses are welcome! however it isn’t fastened by completely different syntax) or earlier than it’s magically fastened, anticipate your LinkedIn.com folks search outcomes to be imprecise.

P.S. I’m solely guessing and there’s a likelihood I is perhaps mistaken, that means that it isn’t bugs, and now looking in key phrases on LinkedIn.com is closely restricted on goal. If that’s the case, it has been applied in odd methods, both deliberately (constructed into the algorithm) or unintentionally (bugs), as seen from simply these two examples above. And the assistance documentation claims that Boolean works.

Let’s hope for some kind of decision.

 

 

 

 

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Recent Comments