Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale From: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) Newsgroups: net.followup,net.jobs,net.news Subject: Re: Headhunters in net.jobs Message-ID: <1257@watcgl.UUCP> Date: Wed, 13-Feb-85 00:53:44 EST Article-I.D.: watcgl.1257 Posted: Wed Feb 13 00:53:44 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Feb-85 04:46:44 EST References: <416@scc.UUCP> <877@cbosgd.UUCP> Reply-To: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) Followup-To: net.jobs Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 13 Xref: watmath net.followup:4467 net.jobs:1019 net.news:3142 I think what got some people upset about the "headhunter" postings in net.jobs was that these particular postings were *qualitatively* different from the group's usual fare. There were about five of them all at once, all written in the same style - that gets a bit tedious. They were written like "advertising" - lots of detail about benefits and such, and rather little specific info about the job itself. I don't think there should be any ban on postings by headhunters - I just think they should be encouraged to post less annoying articles. I recognize why a headhunter isn't going to name the company being recruited for, but in most other respects the article could be the same as any other job posting. How many people would object to well-written postings that happened to come from a headhunter?