It was a pleasure delivering the free “Boolean Solved” webinar, sponsored by HiringSolved, yesterday. We had a huge number of people – 1,057 people signed up! – from 39 countries:
AE, AR, AU, BE, BR, BY, CA, CH, CN, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EC, ES, FR, GB, GH, HU, IE, IL, IN, IT, NL, PH, PK, PL, RO, RU, SA, SG, SZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VN, YE, ZA.
70% of people came from the US. Job titles ranged from Recruiter to VP of Talent.
The night before Google was not cooperating, throwing more captcha’s than usual. I got pretty nervous and prepared the demo search windows ahead of time. During the presentation I had to pick the right window out of about 40; managed OK, though a few more monitors would have been helpful.
Here is an example search from the webinar, where I was explaining how we should be searching for “what we expect to find”, or “how others would phrase what we want to find”, or simply, that it helps to
By the way, it is pretty easy, once you start thinking this way. Let me illustrate this. Suppose we are looking for a list of professionals with contact info. We are going to find people’s names, titles, email domains, etc.
lists of management consulting professionals
or, even, instead of:
list name title company phone management consultant
we would do better if think about what we are likely to find in a “good” result:
- names; how about: Mary Pat John James
- titles; like “Senior” manager… accountant… etc.
- company names, like deloitte accenture
- phone numbers; how about area codes 913 OR 785 OR 620 OR 316 as an example.
Now, try these searches and you will see how much more successful the search gets:
Here’s not a bad result.
How about this:
Here is another not a bad result.
Of course, these are only sample searches. They do illustrate the concept very well.
P.S. Every Sourcer sourcer should also learn how to do a barrel roll.