Sourcing Training

booleanstrings Boolean Leave a Comment

Recruiters: want to become better Talent Sourcers? We are the Sourcing Training and Certification providers and have developed a large number of training courses for Recruitment professionals and all interested. The sourcing training materials and webinars that we offer cover every topic in-depth. For the fans of Boolean training – we have the largest set of classes covering the favorite topic. The classes cover beginner, intermediate, and advanced topics. As our unique offering, every Sourcing training class comes with one month of support for all who sign up.

Our Sourcing Training Library includes 19 in-depth modules on all Internet Sourcing techniques:

  • Sourcing without LinkedIn (most popular!)
  • What Every Recruiter Needs to Know About Sourcing
  • How to Clean, Refresh, and Enrich Your Recruitment Data
  • Sourcing Methodologies
  • Overcoming LinkedIn’s Limitations
  • Mastering LinkedIn Recruiter
  • Facebook Sourcing Mastery
  • Sourcing without Boolean
  • Boolean Strings Basics
  • 300 Best Boolean Strings
  • Improving Candidate Response Rates
  • How to Find and Attract Tech Talent
  • Sourcing for Diversity
  • Recruitment Research – What, Why and How
  • How To Find Clients & Vacancies for Your Agency
  • Sourcing Internationally
  • Data-Driven Recruiting
  • Productivity Tools for Sourcing
  • Custom Search Engines for Everyone

Check the Training Library out at https://sourcingcertification.com/webinars/.

We regularly run live Sourcing training classes, with a mix of Lectures, Practice sessions, and workshops. The most popular workshop has been the Advanced Google Sourcing Workshop.

Our yearly Sourcing Training subscription is the best deal, with over 75% savings on the training modules, and additional offerings. The subscription includes access to all the modules in the Training Library, as they are updated throughout the year, live Sourcing workshops, the Boolean Strings Book, and the Sourcing Certification Exam, that hundreds of your peers have taken, becoming Certified People Sourcing Professionals (#CPSP).

Mark Zuckerberg Doesn’t Know About This…

booleanstrings Boolean Leave a Comment

We have recently discussed how to identify the LinkedIn profile from an email address and how to find Twitter profiles from a list of email addresses.

What’s next? It’s Facebook! Here is how to find the Facebook profiles from a list of email addresses. This technique is especially useful now that Facebook has stopped showing profiles behind email addresses entered into the search box.

From the description below, it may sound complicated, but it isn’t!

Step 1. Prepare a text file that contains the email addresses in question (no names or any additional info is required).

Step 2. Go to Find Friends; enter (any) Gmail address – it can be, for example, 1@gmail.com – and any password. Press the button “Find Friends.”

You will see this:

Step 3. Ignore that message about downloading your Gmail contacts in the CSV format. Instead, click “Choose File”; upload the text file with the list of email addresses – and you will see everyone identified on FB. It will look like this:

That’s it!

(Of course, you shouldn’t be sending friend requests to people who don’t know you).

After uploading, you can find the names of the identified Facebook members in your invite history.

Enjoy!

 

How to Find the Twitter ID from an Email Address

booleanstrings Boolean Leave a Comment

This post shows how to find the LinkedIn profile from an email address.

I will continue “the series” by explaining how to find the Twitter ID from an email addresses. In fact, though the method requires several steps to follow, the process will discover the Twitter IDs for ~500 email addresses at a time.

Step 1. Create a Gmail account and upload the 500 email addresses in question. To clarify, this account should have exactly these 500 contacts (or fewer).

Step 2. Go to https://twitter.com/who_to_follow/import and point to that Gmail account.

Voila! Those IDs registered with the imported contacts will be identified. The display will look like this:

Enjoy!

By the way, this is a way to mass-follow people, too (!)

NEW! Social List Trial and Enrichment

booleanstrings Boolean Leave a Comment

I’d like to share some good news about Social List.

  1. As of now, you can register to use the site – no credit card required. Your trial will last seven days.
  2. With the new release of Social List, we have added the most requested feature: enriching the results with contact email addresses. Enrichment works on LinkedIn Agents. Here is a quick overview of how it works.

Create an account if you don’t have one yet.

In your settings, you will be able to get enrichment credits for your account.

Once you get some enrichment credits (you’ll get 10 credits upfront), you can search and then export selected search results along with the email addresses we have found, by clicking “Enrich and Export Selected Results”:

(You can select all or select some records by clicking on the checkboxes).

The exported results will be populated with email addresses we can find, and will look like this:

An enrichment credit is charged only if we have found an email address.

You will also be able to export just a selection (without enriching the results), by clicking on the button “Export Selected Results”.

We hope the new functionality will be useful to you! Sign up for Social List now at https://sociallist.io.

Two Timeless Lessons in Sourcing (UK)

booleanstrings Boolean Leave a Comment

This is a guest post from Martin Lee.

Back in 1999 when I started my career in this business as an IT “new business” contract recruiter, we used search software called ISYS. I had to make maybe a 100 cold calls to generate one live requirement; I wasn’t the best sales guy. Needless to say, when I got a requirement I had to provide a candidate pretty quickly or a competitor would.

I searched ISYS picking off keywords that I had written down a bit like this:

“project manager” implementation oracle Unix

It brought results, I filled some jobs, and I continued to repeat the process of more cold calls and more searches.

However many jobs I did not fill, and after all of those dreaded cold calls it pissed me off. I remember finding out the name of the successful candidate for one particular job and looking him up (pre-LinkedIn or social media of course). He was on ISYS, but instead of the word implementation, he had used the word implemented. I missed out because I searched for the word I had written down, not the word he had chosen to put on his cv.

Even worse, when I checked on ISYS’ search capability, I found that it had an option to stem words (add variations to the end) so if I’d used implement* I would have found him!

Despite that being almost 20 years ago (oh Lordy) it’s a fundamental sourcing lesson I use, and we try to teach to this day. Today we call it “natural language” searching, looking for words and phrases that people will use themselves instead of what might be in a job description.

Example 2: Looking for security cleared staff.

Back into ISYS but now trying to be smarter and searching for

“security clear*” OR “I hold security” OR “military clear*” OR DV OR SC OR NATO

Again, I found some people, but none had the complete set of skills I was looking for, not on the CVs we had anyway. However, a high majority of the people I did find worked for a company called CSC who was an outsource partner to the Government & the Ministry of Defence.

So what is my next search?

Look for people who work at CSC because I know from other profiles that you MUST be security cleared to work there. The CVs on the second search I looked at had no mention of security clearance, but they had the technical skills. I filled the job. I call this searching by association in that we learn from one profile useful information and then adapt our search accordingly.

Sourcing in 2018 is a little different to in 1999, in some ways I preferred it the way it was with limited data and platforms and the need to be creative. In other ways, I don’t prefer it, the amount of data out there that we can search for means that there is ALWAYS a person for the job you have, if you know how to search for them.

Let’s take these two principles and apply them to two positions I have worked on recently.

Job 1.

A salesperson to sell specialised orthopaedic (hip, knee, joints & extremities) equipment into the National Health Service.

Sales orthopaedic NHS – is one obvious possible search.

However, results were broad, some people had “sales” somewhere on their profile but not directly related to the NHS. I wondered how people would describe this on a cv, how would they write it down when explaining what they do?

Here’s a snippet of the cv of the person I placed:

“Selling to NHS” was the phrase I had used, just that. Also interesting that they use the words bone and trauma, related words but different words.

Job 2.

Wind farm engineers. People who maintain, support and fix existing wind farms.

“wind farm” engineer (maintain OR maintenance OR support OR fix)

The people we placed didn’t have “wind farm” anywhere on their profiles but had “turbines” and quoted MW (the size of the capacity of the turbines) and kWh the power output.

And another one didn’t mention any of these words; they just had the name of the company they worked for on LinkedIn.

The principles are the same, no matter what market you recruit for or in which location. Whatever platforms you use or how much you spend on them, your search results are dependent upon the keywords you enter. How much thought do you give to what those keywords are? If you search the same as your competitors, you will often find the same people.

If you want to dig deeper into sourcing methods, tools and techniques then join myself and Irina in London on June 19th. Here is the link to register:

https://booleanstrings.ning.com/events/sourcing-training-london-19th-june-with-irina-shamaeva-martin-lee

For our blog readers, we offer up to 10 seats with 25% discounted price for the workshop.

“Rapportive” without Gmail or Chrome

booleanstrings Boolean 5 Comments

Recently LinkedIn switched the former Rapportive tool to become Sales Navigator extension, which works in Chrome/Gmail. We’ve all experienced some intermittent problems with the tool.

Here is a way to uncover all that that extension does – even without the need for Chrome or Gmail. This link works in any browser – Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or any other.

https://www.linkedin.com/sales/gmail/profile/viewByEmail/david@braingainrecruiting.com.

Replace the email address at the end with an email that you would like to use – and find the person’s LinkedIn profile. (This link can also verify that the email address exists.) The link works reliably, and it’s fast! You do not need a Sales Navigator subscription; you need to be logged into LinkedIn.

Here is what you would see when using the link above:

Very convenient!

Should You Trust All Google Tip Sheets?

booleanstrings Boolean 4 Comments

To the best of my knowledge, these are trustworthy, informative posts, correctly outlining Google’s advanced search syntax as of now:

I recommend looking through these posts to learn about all the operators Google offers.

And here is a warning: many other online tip sheets and example searches have outdated or wrong info.

Here’s an article, worth reading, from Karen Blakeman: GUARDIAN’S TOP SEARCH TIPS FOR GOOGLE NOT QUITE TIPTOP, It discusses this post from the Guardian.com and its not quite tip-top content.

I can name others who have posted tips that, unfortunately, don’t match the reality. Here is an example – How to find candidates by keyword (skills and experience) – from Workable – which has multiple mistakes. For example, it lists AND as an operator (it’s not); states that the Asterisk * makes Google search for variations of a word (it doesn’t); says that parentheses () group words, while they don’t make any difference in Google. Other tip sheets from Workable have mistakes as well. I could name a dozen more other sites with incorrect information (ask me if you are curious).

Some typical mistakes in the questionable posts include the plus +, which is no longer an operator; using AND and the parentheses; using the asterisk as part of a word; listing the operator NEAR (it doesn’t work on Google); listing the operator link: that no longer works; and suggesting to search for email addresses by using the symbol @.

Conclusion: don’t blindly trust various “Google Boolean” posts – read them with a grain of salt. Compare what those posts say with the correct sources that I listed at the beginning of this post, to see what’s right and what is a mistake. It wouldn’t hurt to try example searches if you are unclear how particular search syntax works.

On May 2nd, I will present a Lecture “Advanced Google Sourcing Workshop” with in-depth coverage of Google’s operators and their applications in Sourcing. As always, the webinar comes with one month of support.

Can’t wait? You can get the latest presentation recording at the same link.

 

 

 

“To be” OR (NOT “to be”) on LinkedIn

booleanstrings Boolean 3 Comments

If we search on LinkedIn without the keywords, all it shows is the “close” network, which is our 1st and 2nd connections. Want to search without keywords but include all results? Then the trick is to use keywords but make the search non-restrictive. Here is an example string that finds everyone:

“to be” OR (NOT “to be”)

(you can replace “to be” with an expression of your liking, the results would be the same).

If we use the above expression and no other filters, we would see the total population of LinkedIn. The number of LinkedIn members that I see at the time of this post is 563,974,696. This number is approximate, not exact – for large numbers of results, we can expect to see approximate numbers. Interestingly, right now, LinkedIn Recruiter, with the same search, shows 560,454,559 results, a 3 MLN member records fewer than in a personal account.

Searching for “to be” OR (NOT “to be”) can be narrowed down to locations and companies and will continue showing all results, the 3rd level and out-of-network included.

Searching in Recruiter (if you have the subscription) provides some additional information about the overall LinkedIn’s population. Recruiter’s “view search insights” function shows the largest companies:

and the locations with the largest numbers of members:

The number of people who are “open to new opportunities,” visible in Recruiter, is currently 28,285,514. That makes 3.7% of LinkedIn members – almost four times higher than a year or so ago, so setting this status has become more popular.

For many more tips on mastering LinkedIn searches, check out the recording of the presentation “Overcoming LinkedIn’s Limitations” in our Training Library.

Google’s Numrange is Broken

booleanstrings Boolean Leave a Comment

I hope that Google’s search operator Numrange will get fixed, and this post will become outdated.

Numrange looks like this – 10..12 (replace the numbers for different ranges). It is supposed to find all the numbers between the lower and upper limits that we specify.

Unfortunately, lately, we and some of our students have noticed the operator Numrange decline – it is no longer working correctly. Here are some examples.

“managed 10..12 people” site:linkedin.com produces zero results, while

“managed 10 OR 11 OR 12 people” site:linkedin.com (seemingly, the same search) produces a large number of results.

Simply searching for 10..12 at the moment produces fewer than 100 results – obviously, the number should be much higher.

The alternative syntax – using three dots or the operator “numrange” do not help either; these searches produce zero results:

“managed 10…12 people” site:linkedin.com

“managed numrange:10-12 people” site:linkedin.com

Numrange is (was?) a useful operator. One way we have been using it is Sourcing is finding multiple phone numbers and zip codes.

We have not seen any relevant announcements from Google. Hopefully, Numrange will get fixed soon!

P.S. By several accounts, Numrange has stopped working in the US but still works in Europe.

 

Three Research Tips for Recruiting Agencies

booleanstrings Boolean 1 Comment

If you work at a recruiting agency, the following Boolean Strings would be useful for generating new business.

1) Find people who have recently started new jobs:

site:linkedin.com/in OR site:linkedin.com/pub –pub.dir “present (1 month)”

site:linkedin.com/in OR site:linkedin.com/pub -pub.dir “present (2 months)”

site:linkedin.com/in OR site:linkedin.com/pub -pub.dir “present (3 months)”

How can this help?

a) You might be able to work on back-filling the positions they have left;

b) For corporate recruiting people or hiring managers who just started new positions – they might be open to working with agencies, including new ones.

The following four strings can help to research companies, identify hiring managers, and shed some light on the reporting structure.

2) Identify managers:

site:linkedin.com/in OR site:linkedin.com/pub -pub.dir “10 OR 20 direct reports”

site:linkedin.com/in OR site:linkedin.com/pub -pub.dir “managing 10 OR 20 People”

3) Investigate the reporting structure:

site:linkedin.com/in OR site:linkedin.com/pub -pub.dir “reported to * at *”

site:linkedin.com/in OR site:linkedin.com/pub -pub.dir “reported to me”

Of course, we can add industry-specific keywords to the above searches, to get the results relevant to our business.

Please join me for the webinar “How to Find Clients and Vacancies for Your Recruiting Agency” on Wednesday, April 18th, for an exploration of a wide variety of Business Development research strategies for Recruiting Agencies.