Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Google Businesses Technology

Google Will Soon Add Job Listings To Search Results ( 83

Google's mission is to steer people to the information they need in their daily lives. One crucial area the Internet giant says could use some work: Jobs. USA Today adds: So Google is launching a new feature, Google for Jobs, that collects and organizes millions of job postings from all over the web to make them easier for job seekers to find. In coming weeks, a Google search for a cashier job in Des Moines or a software engineering gig in Boise will pop up job openings at the top of search results. With Google for Jobs, job hunters will be able to explore the listings across experience and wage levels by industry, category and location, refining these searches to find full or part-time roles or accessibility to public transportation. Google is determined to crack the code on matching available jobs with the right candidates, CEO Sundar Pichai said during his keynote address Wednesday at Google's annual I/O conference for software developers here. "The challenge of connecting job seekers to better information on job availability is like many search challenges we've solved in the past," he said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Will Soon Add Job Listings To Search Results

Comments Filter:
  • Will it be loaded with recruiter spam and fake jobs?

  • Overcrowded Market (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Jzanu ( 668651 )
    LinkedIn, Indeed, Monster, Career Builder, etc. All the entry of Google will do is dilute the search process even more. In the current situation Google functions as a search engine able to cross all of those (except LinkedIn, unless that's changed). Having it create ANOTHER separate index and dilute HR search attention will not help anything. Google also has no experience managing job listings, and that creates a poor pathway to quality. Expect scams and blatantly illegal listings to dominate until Google g
    • by HornWumpus ( 783565 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @03:40PM (#54436287)

      The market is overcrowded, but full of multiple copies (one per recruiter) of bogus job listings (person is already 'hired', now they need to go through motions.)

      Google could add value, but they likely won't as the people paying the bills in job search are the ones putting out all the bad data.

      Google could include 'likelihood of Bullshit', attached to each listing. Also include a link to original listing to cut the recruiters out of the picture. Better: Show the recruiters adds as tree branches under the original listing, default to unexpanded.

      • by Jzanu ( 668651 )
        Google hates hierarchies. They killed Vivisimo which specialized in clustered search presented to the user through automatically generated keyword trees. It was too bad. Hopefully IBM will do something in tribute with the personnel acquired from them.
      • by mjwx ( 966435 )

        The market is overcrowded, but full of multiple copies (one per recruiter) of bogus job listings (person is already 'hired', now they need to go through motions.)

        This. Indeed does a somewhat good job of aggregating jobs here in the UK but I still check some others like Jobserve. Most recruiters are too lazy to write separate job decriptions for each site so its easy to spot ones on different search engines. If LinkedIn wants to be a serious competitor, it needs to up its game in the search arena.

    • Yeah google should concentrate on fixing their borked search engine
  • by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @03:34PM (#54436253) Homepage Journal
    I earn $55k in IT in Silicon Valley. One of my specialities is host files. Hopefully this would allow me to increase my earning potential.
    • What kind of moron makes only $55K in Silicon Valley? :P
      • by Anonymous Coward

        the kind that specializes in host files.

      • There are many of us. We pick up the trash and clean the toilets. We ride public transportation. We aren't all newly minted millionaires here in Silicon Valley you kow.
    • sudo rm -rf / -preserve root

  • If I'm using Google to search for an anime question, I don't want to see job listings that require speaking Japanese. Bad enough I still get recruiters contacting me for Japanese-speaking positions even though I haven't worked at Fujitsu and Sony in years. Working at a Japanese company in the US doesn't mean that I'm fluent in Japanese. I had to explain that to a hiring manager who called from Tokyo a few years ago.
  • This is yet another reason to perform all searches first in DuckDuckGo (DDG). Only when DDG doesn't find what I need do I then use DDG's !g shortcut to perform the same search in Google.

    Even then, I wouldn't dream of searching either DDG or Google without a domain-filtering tool like Google Hit Hider by Domain (
  • by Anonymous Coward

    If I'm searching for something and "job", "interview", "career" and related words are *not* in my search terms, I'm not looking for a job! Don't show me!

    I already use ixquick and DDG, but this change makes it even less likely I'll trust Google's results. There's too much BS going on (AdSense, PageRank, various copyright filters, Google's own bias, etc) behind the scenes to get just the results of your search.

    If I want a job, I'll be searching for it.

    captcha: carcass. I'd like to see Google's.

  • I am not sure it is a good news. When hiring, a huge time is spent filtering out opportunist candidates whose profile does not match the position. Easier finding by hardly interested Google users will probably not help.
    • When job seeking, a huge time is spent filtering out opportunist recruiters whose positions do not match my profile. I have a PhD in electrical engineering, why are you sending me openings for pastry chefs?

  • If there's anything in modern media with a higher bullshit-to-content ratio than job listings I haven't seen it.

"This is lemma 1.1. We start a new chapter so the numbers all go back to one." -- Prof. Seager, C&O 351