Atom, my own experience matches Jerald’s. Trying to determine how to do that effectively will be tricky. In my own experience it has rarely gotten a response, and never once produced a change in results. The goal of the blacklist would be to introduce a cost to their failure.
As I just said to several private inquiries: 1. I agree that there should be procedures to get off the list. A recruiter would be allowed to submit evidence they have changed their behavior and/or fired the responsible person. The goal is to encourage good behavior ;-) 2. Lack of a new report after a period of time (tbd) would cause the report to age out. 3. There would be a cost attribute for repeat offenders. Someone with repeat complaints would get a higher score than someone with a single complaint. Someone who claims to fix it and then re-offends would be higher score as well. On May 7, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Jerald Sheets <[email protected]> wrote: > I’ve been doing this manually for a number of years now. > > I’ve even gone as far to look up the organization’s website and find the > highest ranking person I could find and then call for them, saying I’m with > $company (usually mine) and then letting him have it. > > The biggest abuse, in my opinion, is their adding you to a mailing list you > did not request to be added to. Often, these are poorly configured, and you > cannot get unsubscribed. Or, “steve” (with a decidedly Nepali accent over > what is indeed an overseas connection) will tell you that YOU have to take > some action to get off their list. > > These outfits are as shady as a payday loans outfit, IMO. I’m decreasingly > using recruiters and increasingly relying on my own network any more. It’s > time some of these outfits receive a bit of a punitive response for their > shady activities. > > I queried privately whether there would be a way of getting off said list, > though, to avoid a “SpamHaus” sort of situation. > > This is a GOOD endeavor, IMO. > > > On May 7, 2014, at 3:34 PM, Atom Powers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This sounds like an interesting project. >> >> Do you intend to report abuse before blacklisting? I suspect that at least >> some of the problems could be mitigated simply by reporting the behavior to >> the appropriate manager within the recruiter's organization. And if that >> doesn't help then it wouldn't be unreasonable to blacklist that entire >> organization. >> >> >> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Jo Rhett <[email protected]> wrote: >> So the job market is hot hot hot again (at least out here in Silicon Valley >> / SF) and we’re back again to the days where “talented recruiters” contact >> me in spite of clear statements not to, and concerning jobs with zero match >> on my skillset. Their own job experience shows their last job was flipping >> hamburgers, their skill and ethics demonstrate the same. >> >> Likewise when I am trying to fill roles, I get contacted by recruiters and >> then waste valuable hours only to learn that they are submitting resumes to >> me without having gotten permission from the person. Total ethics fail, and >> a huge waste of time. These recruiters can never represent us well to >> employers, and could never help us fill a role. I wish we had a blacklist so >> that we knew who to avoid. Since the obvious response is “patches welcome”, >> I’m going to create that patch. >> >> I will shortly create a recruiter blacklist which I will maintain, but would >> happily turn over to a group who wants to take it on. Criteria for the list >> include: >> >> 1. Repeated contacts after being told to stop, or constant e-mail spam of >> job opportunities. >> >> 2. Contact through a mechanism where you indicate you don’t want to be >> contacted, e.g. LinkedIn profile that clearly indicates you won’t wish to be >> contacted about job offers. >> >> 3. Contact referencing a resume or posting which clearly indicates you don’t >> want to be contacted. >> >> 4. Situations where a recruiter put your resume forward to a job without >> your permission. This can cause an employer to reject you for an ethics >> violation that you didn’t not authorize. >> >> Technical outputs of this blacklist which users can subscribe to would be: >> >> 1. Domain names >> >> 2. Mail servers by IPv4 and v6 >> >> 3. Individual Names including LinkedIn, Google Plus, etc profiles >> >> The first two would be available via DNS query, all of them would be >> available via HTTP REST interface or a web page where a search can be done. >> >> Submissions would be accepted through the web page or via HTTP REST >> submission only. Contact information and documentation of the ethics failure >> would be required for validation, but available to and used by the >> maintainers of the list only and never shared with anyone. >> >> I’d love to have some help with this. Respond to this message but drop the >> list if you’d like to work on this. I’ll post status updates about it on >> Twitter ‘jorhett’ and http://www.netconsonance.com/ as I roll it out. >> >> -- >> Jo Rhett >> +1 (415) 999-1798 >> Skype: jorhett >> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet >> projects. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators >> http://lopsa.org/ >> >> >> >> -- >> Perfection is just a word I use occasionally with mustard. >> --Atom Powers-- >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators >> http://lopsa.org/ > -- Jo Rhett +1 (415) 999-1798 Skype: jorhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
