Thursday, May 25, 2023
HomeRetirementLinkedIn Engineering Compromises | Boolean Strings

LinkedIn Engineering Compromises | Boolean Strings


Inadequate “processing energy” is the explanation why many enhancements I had requested will not be viable.

1. Why wouldn’t LinkedIn Recruiter seek for a Boolean of faculty names, whereas LinkedIn.com can?

[Dan] That is attainable, in fact, however proper now, it isn’t within the plan as a result of it’s actually (actually) costly to construct Boolean performance exterior of key phrase searches.  That is true (the costly half) for any area exterior of key phrases.  So proper now, we permit key phrase searches (as you, in fact, know).  The price (and due to this fact velocity, and processing energy… not simply speaking about engineering price right here) is substantial.

2. I can’t see an hooked up resume in Recruiter:

[Dan] It is a humorous one, truly.  That man Theo truly did a reasonably artistic use of the “featured” zone.  So we don’t truly “present” that as a resume.  We get resumes from Job Functions, and Publish Apply Circulation sharing. However that doc is definitely in a really poorly adopted part known as “Featured”.  We don’t present that in Recruiter, as a result of it has VERY low liquidity.  So we don’t truly acknowledge that as a resume, even supposing it’s.

Low liquidity?

3. The “Choice or Boolean” fields are complicated. I might separate them – give the consumer a alternative of both Boolean or picks. Think about looking for “present or previous title” for this; I don’t suppose the UI ought to permit it:

[Dan] This concept would work if you happen to 1) assumed our taxonomy was good and a couple of) we supported AND operators with “Choice”.  For 1), for instance, we don’t have “Jira Administrator” in our taxonomy. Now, does that imply we don’t allow you to seek for this? In fact not! It’s a legitimate title. So we allow you to do Boolean to cowl the primary 85% of use instances effectively, however then permit key phrase to allow you to get to 100% protection. And since we don’t do 2), we’d find yourself eradicating Boolean performance if we made you do solely Choice. The “Present Or Previous” simply tells us the place to look. So in actuality, I believe the expertise makes extra sense now than what you might be suggesting.  If we break up them, it might not work as effectively, and never get as a lot protection.

Have you ever appeared on the hidden LinkedIn operators but? They will do wonders; I want that will be within the UI. 😊

[Dan] The article truly says this works however I don’t suppose it does. I attempted it out (and had a PM on my workforce play with it too) for just a few searches, and the outcomes don’t match every time.  So I don’t suppose this might work higher, as a result of I don’t suppose it’s truly doing what that article says it’s.

Oh sure, it does.

Try our newest class on LinkedIn Recruiter, incorporating all of the suggestions I received from LinkedIn Engineering (thanks, Dan!)

 

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Recent Comments