APPLE FOR APPLE

Rahul - Shalaka - Punam - Alex

Weights and heights are good examples of frequency distributions which "tend" to become bell -   shaped (normal   distribution) curves.

 But try plotting these curves for

    . A family of 10 persons

    . 1000 people staying in same building

    . Entire population of the world.

You will find that from an extremely SKEWED Curve (For family), you more to an extremely CENTRALIZED (bell -  shape) curve, as you plot world's Population.

 So, the first thing about these curves is SAMPLE SIZE or POPULATION.

In the enclosed graphs, our "Co - Professionals" populations (which we have plotted) are relatively" small. If these were one million in each case, we would have got a much smoother/ more centralized /less skewed curves.

Then again, 1000 people staying in same building. Surely that curve looks better than the curve for 10 family members. Now you can make it look even better if you plot a curve for height or weight of only those people (amongst those 1000) who are

    . Of same "age" (say 10 years)

  It will further improve if you plot

    . Only "Girls" of 10 years of age.

So, besides sample - size (population), the smoothness / centralization of a curve has a lot to do with

"Similarities amongst the member of the population"
 i.e. "Apple - For - Apple" comparison Unfortunately, our "Populations" contain lots of "Dis - similar"  persons !

eg. "Banking/ Insurance" Professionals

If

    . Your  population was 100,000 people and

    . You plotted a "Sub - population" of

              - Same Age

              - Same Experiences (yrs)

       - Same DEGREE

       - Same Sub - Sector (Pvt.  Vs. Public)

       - Same Region etc.

Then you are bound to get a much smoother / centralized distribution where "extremes" of Raw - Scores have very low probability of occurrence. Given this (theoretical) background, it will take a very long time for our graphs to become NORMAL / BELL - shaped,   when populations of each type of "Co - professional's reach 100,000 or more.

Till then the graphs will look terrible at least to people who do not have much exposure to statistics. It may even  lead to disbelief / skepticism/ rejection of the very concept !

We cannot afford this.

May be "Cumu. Percentage Vs. Raw Score" chart drawn by you in enclosed page is our answer.

It is simple to understand (institute), which makes it ELEGANT.

    No "Mean"

    No "Standard Deviation (6)"

    No Skew (to confuse)

Just one vertical and one horizontal drop are sufficient to tell the candidate.

    . What is my Score?  (Raw Score)

    . Where do I stand    ?  (Percentile Score)

      Amongst my Co - profs

    . How many Co - profs.  ? (Population)

This graph is not "Cluttered - Up" with several lines or tabulations showing population between +10 & -10 (- which, in any case, a candidate does not understand !)

I believe because of the concept of "Comu. Percentage of Co - professionals. Vs  "Raw Scroe",

The graphs (for any function / skill / any population - size / any combination of age / exp/ education level /region etc)

Will always come out as shown by you.

It will always (or almost always) be a smooth, upward curve without "Kinks" - especially, if your RAW - SCROE DATA TABLE, increases raw - scores by 1, i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ......... 100

 I suppose Microsoft Chart, will automatically adjust the X axis and automatically restrict it when "Percentile - Score" figure hits 100. Y axis will always remain as shown by you.

Suggest you / shalaka quickly experiment with 10/15 other FUNCTION - SKILL populations to assure us that this concept will always work, and that we are able to programmatically generate / drop the horizontal / vertical lines as shown in enclosed sample graph.

You may want to adopt this concept also for "SALARY GRAPH" (makes sense), what about TENURE GRAPH ?

I believe, this SIMPLIFICATION (-and avoidance of statistical jargon) will attract the candidates.

Hemen Parekh

COMPANY POPULARITY INDEX

Rahul → Poonam → Shalaka

"Candidate Registration"

In my earlier note, I have shown, at very bottom of this form:

☑ Send my resume against suitable/matching job-advt

☑ I accept Terms & Conditions

[ Submit ]

For this, I suggest following:

▶ "Suitable"/matching job-advt

 whatever "matching" criteria you are currently using

▶ Job-advt

 only those downloaded/posted during last 24 hrs

▶ Period → Daily

▶ Do not send a candidate’s resume to same advertiser more than ONCE-A-MONTH. This is to avoid "duplication" – since we know that many companies keep "re-posting" same advt again & again, for a few days, to attract applications.

▶ Only MASTER/DEFAULT resume to be sent, if candidate has filled-in only STAGE 1

 But once he has "Customized" and made any version ACTIVE, then that version to go.

▶ Shall we send only LINK or full resume?

✍ 24/09/09

— Cont. —

▶ Next, do we capture the "Resume Forwarded" data for each candidate and show it to him on his "My Page"? If yes, to what depth of details do we show it?

Of course, simplest would be to show him one, single, Cumm. figure, as we plan to do in case of "Resume Blast", viz:

Cumm. No. of Resumes Sent

to Matching Job Adverts [_______]

Let us incorporate this in V 1.0

But,

should our planned "architecture" be such as to capture detailed data such as:

• Datewise/Monthwise/Yearwise

• No. of times sent "Company-wise" by any given candidate (Cumm.)

• No. of times sent "Company-wise" by ALL candidates put together (Cumm.)

• No. of times sent against a given job-advt. by all candidates put together (Cumm.)

How will capturing such detailed data help us?

Will this help:

▶ to make job-advertisers and candidates spend more time on our site, making it “sticky”? – to visit their respective “My Pages” frequently to see what is happening? Return visits.

▶ Will this (data-capture), help us develop a better “Recommendation System” for candidates?

▶ Can this (data-capture) help us develop a (pseudo) Popularity Index for job-advertisers? See next page:

S. No	Company Name (Alphabetical)	No. of resumes recd. thru
		Apply Online
2165		A (45,932)

CUSTOMIZE - RESUME.COM

Rahul, Shalaka, Punam, Alex, Rajeev, Abhi

        

Enclosed find

    . Two alternative HOME PAGE layouts

    . Page Write - Ups.

I feel these are the main ones. If you feel there are some other pages which, too need some write - up, then let me know.

Feel free to discuss/ ask for clarifications.

Hemen Parekh

PAGE WRITE-UPS U-I

Rahul

Shalaka

Punaam

Alex

Rajeev

Abhi

06/09/09

Customize-Resume.com

Enclosed find

• Two alternative HOMEPAGE Layouts

• Page Write-Ups

I feel these are the main ones. If you feel there are some other pages which too need some write-up, then let me know.

Feel free to discuss / ask for clarifications.

Draft of Promo email which will go out to every jobseeker whose resume WE parse and upload in Online database

---

Dear Executive

(Ideally this should be the FIRST NAME of the candidate.)

---

Get A Job

or get a better job – in case you already have one. That being your ultimate goal,

your immediate objective is to get the job-advertiser to “notice” your resume, feel impressed and call you for an interview.

To get “noticed”, your resume must “stand-out”. It will, if you “Customize” it. We will help you do that. Absolutely FREE!

We have uploaded YOUR text resume on our website. You can customize it using:

Your User ID = __________

Your Password = __________




Here is the transcribed text from the handwritten page:

---

Just click here on your

Permanent Executive Number (PEN) __________

to reach our EDIT RESUME page.

If you are UNIQUE, it is up to you to ensure that your resume too appears UNIQUE!

With regards,

Hemen Parekh

hcp@recruitguru.com

Ph: 91-22-67070360

RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM

The Internet told me to do it

Shailaka

Poonam

Alex

Rahul

11/08/09

Shailaka → Poonam, Alex

→ In V2.0, we recommend Jobs to Jobseekers

→ And Resumes to Recruiters

→ Based on what other Jobseekers / Recruiters "LIKED" (clicked, visited, viewed resume etc.)

Recommendation System (Recommending Jobs to Jobseekers and Resumes to Recruiters)

• It is human nature to be guided by “Expert Recommendations” while taking any decision. Take a look at “Investments” – whether in property, shares, gold, etc. Newspapers, magazines, TV, Internet are full of so-called “Experts” recommending what you should do. And such “recommendations” are eagerly lapped-up by the investing public.

• See the above article. This trend is catching-up on the internet as well. I have seen job-portals, which say,
  “Other jobseekers who looked at this advt, also looked at following advts:”
  1.
  2.
  3.

• Underlying assumption is that SIMILAR people have SIMILAR tastes (likes/dislikes etc.)

• In V 2.0 of IndiaRecruiter, I propose that our “Recommendations” operate at the following two levels:

At INDIVIDUAL level

At this level, we will compile the “search-parameter-selection-history” of every (logged-in) user, whether a jobseeker or a recruiter.

What “search-parameters” did he select during his search?

(of course, only if he clicked SUBMIT button after selecting).

Store these & arrange each parameter in the descending order of the FREQUENCY with which it was used by THAT user.

(PERSONAL USAGE HISTORY)

Then, every time he returns to the “search-page” (i.e. logs in), display the

SEARCH PARAMETER DROP-LISTS

in the descending order of his own “personal usage,” so his “favourites” always show-up on the TOP of the drop-list. We might, if possible, show inside a bracket, the no. of times he has selected that parameter in the past.

This fig. inside bracket will assure him that we are not pulling a fast one on him! It only shows that “we care to remember”!

This system will apply to both jobseekers & recruiters.

At “COLLECTIVE WISDOM” level

At this level, we want to “recommend” to the user, what SIMILAR people have been doing.

Let us, first take the case of Jobseekers.

What kind of jobseekers are SIMILAR (to one another)?

These are Jobseekers who are:

1. ▶ belong to SAME “function”

2. ▶ have SAME “raw score”

3. ▶ have SAME “desig. level”

4. ▶ have SAME “Edu level” (or even SAME degree/diploma)

5. ▶ belong to SAME “Industry”

6. ▶ draw SAME “salary”

7. ▶ are of SAME “Age” etc. etc.

---

Till we have LAKHS of resumes in our database, such FINE BREAK-UP would be meaningless.

Hence, to begin with, we will take only the first two attributes, viz.:

▶ SAME FUNCTION

▶ and within that function, SAME “RAW SCORE”

---

So the database-table will look like:

                   Raw Score
Function         | 1 | 2 | 3 | ... | 99 | 100
------------------------------------------------
Sales            |   |   |   |     |    |
Mktg             |   |   |   |     |    |
IT/VA            |   |   |   |     |    |
ASP.net          |   |   |   |     |    |

Each CELL will store “Job-Advt” viewed history of all the candidates within each CELL – arranged in descending order of no. of times that Advt was viewed.

Here is the transcription of the handwritten content from Page 4:

So, the most frequently “viewed” (job-advt) by SIMILAR co-professionals

will show up at the TOP and the least frequently viewed will be at the BOTTOM.

Now we are ready to tell that user:

“Here is a list of Job-Advrts which were most frequently viewed by your co-professionals”

Sr. No	Advt ID	No. of times Viewed	Advt. Details	View ✅

There is no need to tell the user what is our definition of his co-professionals.

If he opens/views, we add that instance to our table.

Of course, this Recommended Advt. Display Table will be below

the normal display table of Job-Advrts which meet his current search-criteria.

And, if he opens/views any of those job-advrts,

those too must get added to the CUMULATIVE SEARCH HISTORY –

(CELL WISE) – SIMILAR CANDIDATES.

This (above) logic can be extended to Recruiters conducting Resume Search

at INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

by coupling his own “Search Criteria History”.

Let me know if you’d like a visual diagram for this recommendation logic, or a compiled Word version of these pages.

But, at COLLECTIVE-LEVEL, how do we compare

SIMILAR Recruiters?

There is nothing like “Same Function & Same Score”?

What, if anything, is COMMON between any two recruiters — so that we may treat them as SIMILAR?

As of now, I find that “INDUSTRY” is the only common thread between recruiters — and we are capturing this info in Registration form.

But, when 2 recruiters belonging to SAME Industry login to conduct resume searches, they could well be conducting searches for altogether different types of resumes:

e.g. one is searching for Sales candidates and

   the other is searching for R&D candidates.

So we will need to compile FUNCTION-WISE Resume Search History of all recruiters belonging to SAME INDUSTRY. Once such a search (say for “SALES” function) returned a table containing 49 resumes, then:

WHICH resumes did that recruiter open/view?

Example:

All recruiters from AUTOMOTIVE industry, while conducting Resume search for function SALES, opened/viewed following resumes:

Sr No	PEN No	No. of times Viewed	Candidate Data			View
						☐

Would you like a complete digitized version of the entire 6-page set with uniform formatting in Word or PDF?

HOW NAUKRI ATTRACTS JOBSEEKERS

Naukri

• Entire focus is on "Job-Seekers".

• As far as Employers are concerned, the entire page contains only 2 (small print) links, viz:

| Employers: Login | Buy Online |

---

• Home page lists “jobs” in many different ways, viz:

✅ Jobs By Category

✅ Jobs By Company / Browse All Jobs By Companies

▶ Top Employers

▶ Best Places To Work

     } ➜ We will work out a proposal for this, once we have uploaded V 2.0 by 20/10/09

▶ Job Gallery

▶ Hot Vacancies

✅ Job Locations

▶ Jobs In Print

▶ Naukri Channels

▶ Job Messenger

▶ Resume Services

---

▶ Search Job

| Keywords | Exp | Location | Func. Area |  [Search]

Recommendation System (continued)

▶ At INDIVIDUAL level

At this level, we will compile the search-parameter-selection history of every (logged-in) user, whether a jobseeker or a recruiter.

What search parameters did he select during his search?

(Of course, only if he clicked the SUBMIT button after selecting.)

We will store these and arrange each parameter in descending order of the frequency with which it was used by that user

→ (Personal Usage History)

Then, every time he returns to the "search-page" (i.e., logs in), display the:

SEARCH PARAMETER DROP-LISTS

In the descending order of his own personal usage, so his "favourites" always show up on the TOP of the drop-list.

We might, if possible, show inside a bracket the number of times he has selected that parameter in the past.

This figure inside the bracket will assure him that we are not pulling a fast one on him!

It only shows that we care to remember.

This system will apply to both jobseekers and recruiters.

---

▶ At "COLLECTIVE WISDOM" level

At this level, we want to recommend to the user what similar people have been doing.

Let us first take the case of Jobseekers.

What kind of jobseekers are SIMILAR to one another?

Observation on Naukri (Cont) — Page 3

▶ Now that, thru Job Aggregator, we are in a position to offer OVER 2 LAKH JOBS

(– probably more than any other website),

then, should we seriously consider “copying” Naukri’s strategy? — of offering “umpteen options” to jobseekers to zero-in on their desired jobs fast?

In any case, we are parsing and creating a very detailed/broken-down database of all downloaded jobs.

And, we have planned to make ALL of these jobs “searchable” thru our

“Conventional Job Search.”

Except that:

▶ Our “Conventional Job Search” is crammed with too many “Search Criteria”! —

Whereas Naukri’s search-bar has only 4 criteria, viz.:

• Keywords

• Exp

• Location

• Functional Area

Enclosed find a page U/I for APPLY ONLINE / JOBSEARCH

I have taken same "Search-Criteria" as in our current "Conventional Job Search" — only rearranged in such a way that any one (and ONLY ONE) can be selected at a time to display results.

Will this presentation of OPTIONS make jobseeker’s life easier/simpler? I don’t know.

There will always be some jobseekers who wish to SIMULTANEOUSLY apply MULTIPLE search criteria to drill down to a very short SHORTLIST.

Search engines too return MILLIONS of pages, but no one has time/patience to go beyond 3rd page!

What may be an ideal solution could be that a jobseeker can START with his ONE / TOPMOST criteria and then be able to gradually narrow down the SEARCH RESULTS by applying successive FILTERS.

I think we had this functionality but removed it. Was it because it was not intuitive? – and ended up being more confusing!

Pl. apply your mind.

What about MAGIC CUBE SEARCH?

e.g.:

▶ Industry vs. Functional / Skill

▶ Industry vs. Designation – Level

▶ Function vs. Designation – Level

→ Matrices

---

But, in case of IT professionals, it is not

“Desig. Level” but “Role” or “actual Designation”

(as Kesha–Atidan pointed out & what option Naukri already provides).

In case of IT,

we need to deviate from the “MAGIC CUBE” concept

and present

MAGIC “SPREADSHEET” concept of

“Skill” vs. “Role” (or Actual Designation)

---

Sketch at bottom of page:

A matrix-style table with:

• Top row: Skill categories → Java, ASP, VB

• Side column: Act. Designation

The grid implies a many-to-many mapping between skills and job roles/designations.

Date: 19-07-09

As far as HOME PAGE is concerned, I enclose:

Option A & Option B

There is no big difference between the two.

Main thrust is on:

• Eliminating many links

• Simplicity / Visual appeal

• Non-cluttered look

• Provision for Google Ads

• “Customize Resume – Free Trial” as default homepage

---

This last one is equally important in order to attract jobseekers to submit their resumes.

---

Our current version has following shortcomings:

▶ Hardly anyone clicks on Sample Profile link

 (one amongst dozens on homepage)

 to get an idea about graphs / analytics etc.

▶ There is no “interactivity” / “playing around”

 with profiles shown.

---

With my proposal, we will overcome these shortcomings – and hopefully motivate jobseekers to

submit resumes.

✍️

19-07-09