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?