7

It looks to me like we have a majority of questions coming in tagged as:

Most seem to be people looking for jobs wanting to know how best to get them. But some may be the other end.

I'm thinking it's probably time to combine some of these tags? Or better explain in the tag wikis why they are separate. Can anyone suggest a good meme for sorting through the current cluster and refining it a bit?

My biggest goal is that if you click on a tag, you get a unified cluster of questions that relate to it, and you have very little doubt that you should have picked a different tag. Right now I don't have that on our cluster.

I'm willing to help with clean up when we make a decision. I think I'm up at a level were I can retag...

  • 3
    Job-change is important and distinct; changing from one job to another has some unique aspects. job is totally useless, brb. Aaaaand there's no more job tag. – Rarity Jul 25 '12 at 20:41
  • @Rarity a moment of silence. :bows head:... right. beth, you bring up a very good point. however, i don't think that 'job-search', 'job-change', 'hireing-process', and 'recruitment' are similar enough to warrant combining the tags. perhaps some more focus would be nice, descriptions that imply, say, 'recruiment' is for questions relating to the recruiting side of things, while 'hireing-process' would be from the recruitee. – acolyte Jul 27 '12 at 13:58
5

The way I read these:

  • Job-search: I am looking for a job and have a question. I am not looking to hire employees.
  • Job-change: I am switching between jobs and have a question. I may or may not still be looking, but I definitely already have a job I am leaving
  • hiring-process: about the rigmaroles of interviewing, calling, emailing etc that are involved in the hiring process. Possibly from both sides? Possibly a duplicate of Job-search?
  • recruitment: I am recruiting and have a question. Limiting this to one side of the table makes this and job-search a lot less confusing. It's not currently used this way though, so it's ambiguous.

I went and added a better tag wiki to

  • 1
    Which tag would I use if I have a question about dealing with "recruitment" in the sense of being recruited, responding to recruiters, and those things that are not applicable to job searches in general? recruiters? – Nicole Jul 25 '12 at 21:18
  • @NickC currently that's Recruitment. I still hold that 'recruiters' isn't a good way to disambiguate that though (which is why it's currently a synonym of recruitment). Open to suggestions on how to split it into recruiting vs being recruited – Rarity Jul 25 '12 at 21:21
  • Well, I would say recruiting is better for your description above -- maybe as a subset of recruitment, which is open to all recruitment issues? – Nicole Jul 25 '12 at 21:23
  • @NickC I'd rather keep them separate, as opposed to having 50% of recruitment questions being about being recruited and 50% about recruiting – Rarity Jul 25 '12 at 21:25
  • @NickC i think 'hiring-process' would fit your situation best. – acolyte Jul 27 '12 at 13:59
  • @acolyte that makes sense...making hiring-process only for the side that's doing the hiring, then? – Rarity Jul 27 '12 at 15:37
  • @Rarity nonono. 'Recruitment'/'Recruiting' is for the hiring side. 'Hiring-process' would be for the person looking to be hired. – acolyte Jul 27 '12 at 16:22
  • @acolyte this misunderstanding right here is exactly why I think we will be harmed, not helped, by any one-sided distinction that is not totally natural or obvious. – Nicole Jul 27 '12 at 16:24
  • @NickC I certainly prefer something obvious, but I'm having troubling thinking of anything that doesn't ambiguously refer to both sides of the table – Rarity Jul 27 '12 at 16:50
  • @NickC and rarity, that's what the tag wiki is for. at some point, honestly, if you want this to be resolved, there's only one way. make an arbitrary decision either way, and document it in the tag wiki. – acolyte Jul 30 '12 at 12:59
4

Given this list (now that Rarity has gotten rid of "job"), I do see them as 4 distinct tags, but I can completely see where the nuances would be missed by users just trying to categorize into something that makes sense.

I vote to spend some time with tag wiki entries. In fact, I will try to devote a chunk of time to that this weekend.

However, the point about thinking about merging some tags (maybe not these) is well-taken. I think that > 100 days in, we have a good enough sample size that we should begin looking, as you have (thanks!).

  • 1
    boss and management could probably be merged or something – Rarity Jul 25 '12 at 21:48
  • 3
    Yay! Glad I'm not crazy! Haven't been so much of a very, very early beta user before, so this new to me. Thanks for volunteering for the edits. If you want help, let me know. – bethlakshmi Jul 26 '12 at 20:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .