LinkedIn’s Relevance vs. Keyword Conundrum: How Do You Sort?
Posted by Amanda Jordan in Recruitalicious, tags: Google, LinkedIn, twitterI want to pose a question: how do you use LinkedIn to source candidates? If you’re like me, you use the “Relevance” option to sort your search results. And while I thought this was a great way to help me find the best candidates, after reading a recent Boolean Black Belt blog post, I realized that I’ve ignored a large part of what LinkedIn has to offer.
My long-held assumption was that “Relevance” only returns results based on the words I enter. However, sorting by “Relevance” is the default value. Duh, why didn’t I know that? I thought it was awesome that my computer knew me so well that it automatically went to “Relevance” to sort my search results (apparently, that’s not the case).
According to the post, when you sort by this value, you’re getting results based on what LinkedIn thinks is relevant, which differs greatly from how other source sites like Google, Twitter and Applicant Tracking Systems work. These sites sort according to what keywords are entered. LinkedIn sorts by a combination of factors– this includes what you searched for, but also your “social graph” (1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree connections).
About a year ago, LinkedIn launched a new search platform. It explained that the relevance of search results is affected by each person’s professional network on the site. Relationship is key. That means that LinkedIn tries to personalize the relevance, placing professionals that are most likely to be of interest to the one executing the search at the top of the first search results page. Read the rest of this entry »






