Sink Into LinkedIn Headlines – Tie inanchor: To Your Strings

booleanstrings Boolean 2 Comments

Guest Post from Talent Sourcer Mike Santoro

How to Search Linkedin Profile Headlines with X-Ray

You won’t find a “Headline Search Field” option in LinkedIn Recruiter, LinkedIn Sales Navigator, LinkedIn Recruiter Lite, or Linkedin.com Basic Search. Isn’t that strange? ( Yes).  Irina shared a headline search tip (first discovered by Aaron Lintz) in her Facebook Group Boolean Strings, the Internet Sourcing Community – FB.  If you have a Linkedin Recruiter level account, then there is a “Hidden Unpublished Operator” headline: that still works if you insert it into the “job title search field” that will allow you to search headline text.

(BTW, you should join Irina’s Facebook Group. Many great discussions, collaboration, and peer reviews of new methods like this one were first published and peer-reviewed in her FB Group).

However, what about those who don’t have a LinkedIn Recruiter level account?  You’re in luck! This discovery will show you how to easily X-Ray search for keywords in LinkedIn Headlines using a lesser-known advanced google operator.

But first, a Question:  Why is it essential for Recruiters and Sourcers to have the ability to search for Keywords within LinkedIn Headlines exclusively?

Answer: Professionals are more and more often understanding the value in editing their LinkedIn Profile Headlines beyond just the default “JOB TITLE at CURRENT COMPANY NAME.” The Headline is their key profile “real estate” to define themselves. Whenever someone posts anything on LinkedIn, the news feed will show three things, their Full Name, their Profile Picture, and their Headline!  Professionals are now more often putting their CORE skills in their Headlines or their REAL “functional job title” (what they do) while putting their often corporate given “generic job title” under their work experience section. And, since LinkedIn makes Headlines challenging to search with precision, it’s harder for Recruiters and Sourcers like us to find them.

Therefore, I’m sharing this discovery of a new X-Ray method to help Recruiters and Sourcers who don’t have LinkedIn Recruiter and want to more precisely search Headlines for how people self-identify themselves and their skills.  It can make your job easier and make your hiring managers happier.

“For Love of Sourcing and Sourcers”  –Mike Santoro

Google Search has an obscure, lesser-known advanced operator called inanchor: that I’ve never seen any other talent sourcers or recruiters use effectively.

The discovery is simple.

When used through X-Ray Search, Google’s inanchor: advanced operator will search text within the “Headline’s” section of a LinkedIn Profile.

Yes, it’s that simple!

Try this:

site:www.linkedin.com/in site:www.linkedin.com/in inanchor:”Retail Sales Manager”

This example above will show all those who have the phrase “Retail Sales Manager” exclusively in their Headline!

Here’s one way this can be very useful. Since Irina and others have published that we can use Google’s intitle: operator to search for someone’s Current Job Title (or current company’s name), then we can now combine intitle: with inanchor: in many useful ways like this:

site:www.linkedin.com/in site:www.linkedin.com/in inanchor:”Retail Sales Manager” -intitle:”Retail Sales Manager”

This example above will show a new group of formerly “less discoverable” candidates who self-identify themselves as “Retail Sales Managers” in their LinkedIn Headlines but have a different Current Job Title like just “Sales Manager” or “Retail Manager” or “Retail Store Manager.”

You can also do the opposite.  Search for those who have “Retail Sales Manager” as their current job title but a different phrase in their Headline:

site:www.linkedin.com/in intitle:”Retail Sales Manager” -inanchor:”Retail Sales Manager”

Here are more inanchor: examples to inspire your sourcing creativity.

You are a Tech Sourcer and want to find a Python expert. Many of those candidates will have the generic corporate job title like “Software Engineer” or “Software Developer” in their experience section. But those who are true “experts” in Python will likely describe themselves and their experience in their Headlines more clearly as a “Python Developer” or “Python Engineer” or “Expert in Python,” or list the word “Python” with other software skills, etc.

Therefore, you can search LinkedIn Headlines for those phrases using Google’s inanchor: operator to find more accurate candidates like this.  Those who have “Engineer” in their current job title and “Python” in their Headline (but not “python” in their current job title):

site:linkedin.com/in inanchor:python intitle:engineer -intitle:python -inanchor:engineer

You will find a formerly less discoverable candidate like Brandt Bucher, who self-identifies himself clearly in his Headline as a “Python Core Developer,” but his current job title is vague “Software Engineer II” at Microsoft:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandtbucher/

Or

You are doing an Executive Search, and you want to find a CEO who also uses the word “Visionary Leader” in their Headline. Now you can search for those candidates like this:

site:linkedin.com/in inanchor:”visionary leader” intitle:”CEO”

You will find someone like Victoria, whose job title is a “CEO” and whose Headline states the phrase “visionary leader”  :

https://www.linkedin.com/in/victoria-stevenson-98555a8/

Furthermore, you can get complex and more specific too! (This is where it gets fun and very exciting to use)

How about we look for “Open to Work” Sales Professionals with Digital Marketing Experience who are NOT Managers, Directors, or Executives.  We will use inanchor: to search for those who put the phrase “Open to Work” or “Open to New” in their Headlines. We will use -inanchor: and -intitle to (more cleanly than ever) remove managers, directors, and executives from the search results by profiles with those words in both the Headline and current job title sections:

site:linkedin.com/in (inanchor:”Open to work” OR inanchor:”Open to new”) inanchor:”Sales” digital marketing -inanchor:director -inanchor:executive -inanchor:manager -intitle:director -intitle:manager -intitle:executive

So many new and fun possibilities to find new candidates with more precision!

Enjoy this!

LinkedIn Does Not Understand Its Data (and a Conference May 31 – June 3)

booleanstrings Boolean Leave a Comment

When your requisition asks for a Bachelor’s degree, do you use the Degree filter in LinkedIn Recruiter? I used to but have now stopped. When you search for Bachelor’s, LinkedIn misses profiles like this:

Here is what happens: LinkedIn has allowed members to enter their data in a relatively “free-form” format, but it fails to interpret the data correctly. It results in “false negatives” in search results: many matching profiles do not appear.

It is the same story with other filters. For example, LinkedIn cannot assign Seniority, Function, or Company Size to almost half of its members.

How do you find profiles in this hidden, uninterpreted data?

With filters like Company or Job Title, where you have a choice of text (Boolean) or selection, use Boolean most of the time. Value selections will only find profiles that LinkedIn “understands.”

With filters like Degree or Seniority – do not use them, at least not in some of your searches.

Please join me and several other speakers (whose names you will recognize) at

Global HR & Recruitment Forum,

where my talk will be:

“How LinkedIn Recruiter (Really) Works.” LinkedIn has the best professional data. However, finding the right profiles with LinkedIn Recruiter (or Lite) is not straightforward. The UI/UX is highly unintuitive, and users who follow the prompts miss a lot of potential matches. Irina will explain the algorithms behind the LIR search and hacks to get deeper into sourcing, unearthing candidates that LIR has not made easy to find. She will also explain why stepping outside of Recruiter and using LinkedIn.com and X-Ray widens your search.

70% of the registration fees will go to help Ukraine, which is a great reason to join and hear first-class content on sourcing and recruiting!

Finding Contacts via Custom Search Engines

booleanstrings Boolean 1 Comment

Google Custom Search Engines (CSEs)add much power to Google search. Based on Schema.org object definitions, sites can “tell” Googlebot that they have objects, like a Person object. The definition of a Person has tons of fields, but sites usually implement only some. CSEs can pull sites with “Persons” and narrow down to the presence of some fields or their values.

What is interesting is sties that have the Person object with an Email field. To find sites that do support it, you can use a Find Everything CSE, which searches across the web with no restrictions. The operator to locate “email-friendly” sites is

more:p:person-email.

Here are some sites with the field Person-email, where you will land on pages with contact information using CSEs. Try the links to results in the following:

Deloitte.com:

porsche.com:

Getty

Github.io, for Software Engineers sourcing:

Join us next Wednesday, May 18, 2022 for a webinar Become a Custom Search Engines Expert and add the powerful technique to your Sourcing Toolbox. We have included an optional workshop for those of you who want to practice the skill.

If you use our sourcing tool Social List, you can not only run these searches but collect results in Excel.

We have authored the only detailed book on CSEs – Custom Search – Discover more:, which has become popular among Sourcing and #OSINT professionals globally.

“See” you on Wednesday?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Search Is Broken on LinkedIn – NOT, AND

booleanstrings Boolean 4 Comments

What is going on here? The operator NOT did not exclude – even highlighted – the word “recruitment.” I started running into this phenomenon a few weeks ago, but the output seemed random: sometimes, NOT was acknowledged, sometimes, ignored. Then I saw weird results without the NOT, but the NOT “deficiencies” was easier to illustrate on social media.

My share of “what is going on here?” on Facebook got 2.5K+ views and reactions; on LinkedIn – 41K+ views and climbing! Most commenters complained about intermittently seeing this too. Some suggested changing the syntax – but neither extra parentheses, quotation marks, nor the minus instead of NOT help.

In the LinkedIn thread, we heard from a LinkedIn manager that the keyword search in LinkedIn.com (including the business accounts) is not “Boolean” and should be used to find people you know. The unhappy “news” flew around various Facebook groups. It sounded like something Recruiters expect of LinkedIn, to be pushed into higher-paid products.

But I believe that what we are experiencing with NOT is not intentional (which means there is a disconnect between some managers and developers at LinkedIn; we have observed it before.)

Here is an example to prove my point: David Galley has the keyword “blending” in the About section of his profile. Compare these searches:

There are no Boolean operators in these searches. They should be identical. Why is the first one not working? I think, it is a bug (or bugs). There are other examples and variations of keyword searches that look odd shared in the two LinkedIn and Facebook streams above.

There are additional “circumstantial” signs (I watch a lot of British TV!) that it is not that LinkedIn wants us all to buy LinkedIn Recruiter by intentionally restricting search on LinkedIn.com:

  1. There is no “please upgrade” sign, just the wrong results
  2. There is nothing about it in the documentation
  3. This was such big news around FB because nobody has heard this, while there should be a promotion.
  4. You can see from the multiple comments that many have had a negative experience with search. Why would LinkedIn want this? They could have set the expectations.

So it seems to be an unintentional code change. The bad news is that, for now, we do not understand how exactly the search is broken. If we could guess the underlying mechanism, we could develop workarounds (as I have shared on this blog before). Before one of us figures it out (guesses are welcome! but it is not fixed by different syntax) or before it is magically fixed, expect your LinkedIn.com people search results to be imprecise.

P.S. I am only guessing and there is a chance I might be wrong, meaning that it is not bugs, and now searching in keywords on LinkedIn.com is heavily restricted on purpose. If so, it has been implemented in odd ways, either intentionally (built into the algorithm) or unintentionally (bugs), as seen from just these two examples above. And the help documentation claims that Boolean works.

Let’s hope for some sort of resolution.

 

 

 

 

How I Read Your Resume: a US Recruiter Notes

booleanstrings Boolean 1 Comment

Guest post from Julia Tverskaya

Your resume provides that all-important first impression. Writing a good resume is not simple. It can and should take several hours or even several days. But the effort pays off.

The purposes of the resume are:

1) to be selected for an interview;

2) to provide a conversation starter during the interviews.

Everything you put on the resume must serve these purposes.

For a resume to be selected, it must stand out from the crowd (in a good way 😊).  This means that the resume focuses on results and achievements and not as much on job responsibilities. This is what distinguishes a good resume from an ordinary one. Think about it this way: what you do every day, somebody else does every day. Putting your day-to-day responsibilities on the resume does not help you stand out from the crowd, nor does it provide a good topic for a discussion during an interview.

Even worse, when a Software Engineer says that they fix bugs, or a Physician says that they treat patients, it creates an impression of a junior person who does what they are told, someone who does not “own” or does not care about the results.

What have you done that was especially interesting or complex, something you are proud of, or something that earned you an award or praise?  Focus on that.

Reading a resume is just that: reading. First, it has to be interesting. Secondly, it needs to be clean: anything that distracts or irritates the eye is not welcome and may annoy the reader.

Let’s talk about the specifics.

Describe your experience in the reverse-chronological order. I want to see what you did and when; a “functional” resume does not work for me (and most hiring managers).

Keep it short:

  • 2-3 pages

Keep it clean:

  • Do not use many fonts and colors: it distracts me from the reading.
  • No need to include a picture.
  • Do not include any personal details like your marital status, DOB, etc.
  • Consider including visa info if the resume suggests you do not come from the USA (e.g., you graduated from a foreign university or worked abroad).
  • If you’ve won awards, graduated with a top GPA, or are a recognized leader in your area of expertise, include that information
  • If you have interesting hobbies or achievements in other areas, are a volunteer, feel free to list them at the bottom of your resume
  • Proofread your resume. Ask a friend to read it before sending it over – especially if English is not your native language. Ensure there are no spelling errors, and the grammar is consistent and correct.

Work history:

Some industries evolve very quickly. If you work in one of those (e.g., are a software engineer), everything you did ten or more years ago should be described briefly or not at all, for three reasons:

1) the further back in time, the less relevant (usually) your experience is for a reader.

2) You can be asked about any project on your resume. Are you prepared to talk in detail about something you did 15 years ago? Of course, if you did something fascinating and want to talk about it, do include this, even if it happened in the last century.

3) It helps to keep the resume short 😊

Gaps:

A “functional” resume is often the choice when there are gaps in the work history. However, hiding gaps will not work; I will discover them anyhow. If you have good explanations for the employment gaps (e.g., you had a baby, took a year off to travel the world, or went back to school), you can explain that in a cover letter upfront. But be prepared to talk about these gaps.

Describing your experience:

  • Describe the things you want to talk about (to be asked about) during an interview. If you have used a tool a few times but are not an expert, do not list it. I recently talked to a candidate who claimed she was a “BI expert” but could not name any BI tools she used.
  • Avoid generic terms like “involved” (variations: “deeply” or “actively” involved); “worked on”, “participated (or actively participated) in”, “assisted with”, etc. For example, software engineering is a team effort, and everybody is involved: from an architect to an intern, including an office manager who orders pizza for the team. Using these words does not provide information, but it is also irritating for me as a reader. Instead, think about what you have been responsible for and what you have done. Describe your experience using active words, showing ownership, such as “was responsible for,” “led,” etc.
  • If you are applying for a position that you are not a match for, please explain your reasoning. Otherwise, it creates an impression that you have not read the job description before clicking the “Apply” button.
  • If the job would require you to relocate, it’s better to address this upfront. Please do not make me wonder whether you missed the job location.

When applying for a job:

  • Check that you have all the “must-haves.” If you do not, your application will likely be ignored. If you do not have the required experience but still think you are a strong candidate, please address that in a cover letter. Be specific; remember that you compete with those who meet all the requirements.
  • If you have not worked for more than a few months, consider volunteering, getting a contract, and networking to “refresh” your resume first.

Thank you for reading! Recruiters, please feel free to add your comments.

(Also, check out LinkedIn Profile SEO: How to Be Found).

YOE in LinkedIn Recruiter Demystified

booleanstrings Boolean 1 Comment

For years, I have been annoyed at the “years at company” , “years in position”, and “years of experience” filters in LinkedIn Recruiter. I get false positives like many other. For example, I search for people with more than one year of experience and see those who have only worked for eight months. I have filed it in the (long) “known bugs” category. (Filing bugs with LinkedIn has never proven fruitful for me.)

And then it dawned on me what it is doing. It is not a bug, it’s a feature! It is an undocumented feature. LinkedIn is rounding the number of months! (This way, someone’s 7 months at a company is rounded to 1 year, and the person wrongly appears in the results. It “works” the other way around, too. Someone with 2 years 5 months at a company or in a position will be found in a search for people with less than 2 years of the same. The “years of experience” has the same flaw (though it is also buggy in other ways).

(If I had a requirement to search by the rounded years of experience, it would be right on! I would have said, “thank you, LinkedIn”! But I do not recall being asked to do so.)

How does it happen that “the” site (LinkedIn) and “the” type of account (Recruiter) most corporations use has such a fundamental misunderstanding of what Recruiters need? My best guess is that at LinkedIn, Developers end up inventing what the user wants. Communicating users’ needs to Developers is the role of Product Managers. It must be the PMs do not know about recruiting, or they do not talk to the Developers. It is hard to say.

And we waste time opening non-matching profiles.

Learn about other ways LIR “really” works in LinkedIn Recruiter Mastery.

At least understanding what’s going on makes it less annoying. The radical way to deal with such inconveniences is scraping. After you have scraped the data, you are in control of finding and filtering by the correct values, and not their interpretations,

If you have not done scraping data as part of your sourcing process, it is time to start.

The Rule of Three In Search

booleanstrings Boolean Leave a Comment

It is like mushroom gathering. If you see a few mushrooms, you would look around for more. (It was a favorite family vacation activity when I was a child).

If a web page has (about) three values of the same kind – for example, company names or email addresses – it will likely have more.

There are two ways to exploit this idea.

Research

If you are looking for a product (of any kind) and know some product names, put 3 (or 2-4) of them in a search string to find pages with lists of those products. For example, if you are researching best Chrome Extensions for finding emails, list three you know of in your string to find more. It is the same story for threes of target company names, etc.

Then, if you wish, you can create OR strings out of the values you find.

Sourcing for Lists

Contact lists of professionals that Google can find is a largely untapped resource in recruiting. That is because most pages with lists are not ranked very high. You will not find them by Googling unless you make an effort.

If you search for something like a list of nurse practitioners in florida, your top results will be sites that sell that data. But if you search for threes of first names, company names, job titles, email domains, or phone extensions, along with some “list indicators” like list, directory, or roster, results will be beautiful.

You will find examples of the Rule of Three for list-searching at the end of this post.

In the just-delivered class LinkedIn Solved, I spoke about utilizing both techniques to proceed to find potential candidates on LinkedIn.

 

 

Advantages of Inclusive Sourcing on LinkedIn

booleanstrings Boolean Leave a Comment

Search is an iterative process. (It is the main reason for “Boolean Builders” not to “fully automate” sourcing – however, they can be useful for LinkedIn.)

Search, review the results, reword, make wider or narrower, repeat.

The process is both monotonous and creative.

In a sourcing sequence, there are two approaches to take:

  1. Start narrow, e.g., put in all the must-haves and nice-to-haves. If you get too few results, relax the search. Repeat, opening it up in a different way.
    The advantages are that you will land right on the “ideal” candidates. The disadvantage is that your competition and everybody else is already messaging these people, so your chances are low.
  2. Start broad, e.g., only list the must-haves – get many results and many false positives. Remove the “wrong” keywords you notice in the results (e.g., you see managers while looking for staff), search, and repeat.
    The advantage of this approach is that you will find matching profiles with unusually spelled out wording (like “Chief Coder,” not “Software Engineer”). (LinkedIn is not great at semantic search). Other recruiters won’t find them, so you have a better chance at catching their attention.

The second approach is more inclusive and highly applicable to Diversity Sourcing.

Join us for the webinar “LinkedIn Solved” on Wednesday, March 23rd, 2022, to improve your LinkedIn sourcing skills with various hacks and understand how it “really” works.

War In Ukraine

booleanstrings Boolean 4 Comments

I have not posted any non-sourcing content before, but I want to speak up this time.

The war in Ukraine is horrible. Children have died.

Let us support the Ukrainians by donations. Here, your donation will go directly to the Ukrainian refugees (shared by a friend who knows the organization) – https://www.cashforrefugees.org

Putin has started the war, not the Russians. Russia is going back to the USSR’s worst aspects. Currently, the Russian media tells lies, and many social networks are blocked. Let us help the Russians by sharing information. Telegram is a good place to share – and track – news.

I am Russian. I had a Russian Grandmother, Ukrainian Grandfather, and a Kyiv-born Jewish Grandmother. What’s happening feels like a bad dream.

Suddenly, Google Search Is Less Semantic

booleanstrings Boolean Leave a Comment

Until about a week ago, Google provided us with synonyms and variations – “auto-stemming” – of every search term (unless we put it in quotes). It still does, but noticeably less so.

Previously, searches like supervisor -supervisor -supervisory -supervisors gave us synonyms for the word “supervisor,” like “manager”. Now the search produces no results.

Previously synonyms readily made it to the most relevant results:

This is no longer true – we get exact term matches for the high-ranked results.

From what I have observed, auto-stemming and synonyms are still “there” but “activated” only when we search for something specific. This search, for example, does produce “managers”:

supervisor -supervisor -supervisory -supervisors job “night shift” scheduled maintenance aviation.

The change feels like a step back to me. I wish someone from Google would comment! But,

Google will still find synonyms and word variations of the terms for a narrow search.

Does the change mean we should start using ORs on Google to search for synonyms? Not really. It means we may want to search more times, though. Here is an example.

site:linkedin.com/in java backend engineer – 389 results

site:linkedin.com/in java backend developer – 363 results

Total unique results from the two searches – 638

site:linkedin.com/in java backend developer OR engineer – 390 results.

Instead of using ORs, run subsequent searches with your terms.

Check out the new, 6th, edition of the “Boolean Book” and accompanying webinar.