.jobs looks useless to me.
- To: stld-rfp-jobs@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: .jobs looks useless to me.
- From: Michael Bauser <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 02:45:12 -0400
- Organization: Bauser.com (Trenton, MI)
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040316
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I have to agree with Dan and Mark; .jobs looks (to me) like a lame
attempt to bully corporations into buying superfluous domains. (The
"inconsistency" argument in the proposal is just lame, and the
"additional e-mail functionality" argument is just plain disingenuous --
there's no functional difference between "resume@xxxxxxxxxxx" and
"resume@xxxxxxxxxxxx", except that the HR guys get the pseudo-status of
a TLD denied to their non-HR co-workers.)
Really, are people having serious problems finding job listings on the
Internet? I can't figure out if .jobs is a lame attempt to obsolete job
search sites like monster.com (by encouraging people to go directly to
corporations for job listings), or a lame attempt to make to simplify
*designing* job search sites (by making it easier for automated
webcrawlers to find job listings.) In either case, .jobs is unfair to
One of the benefits of classified ads is that they introduce jobseekers
to employers they might not have heard of; a .jobs domain won't help
low-profile companies, because people can't go directly to companies
they haven't heard of.
Automated programs, on the other hand, don't need a TLD to help them;
they need better programmers (and maybe better metadata standards).
Building TLDs to benefit webcrawlers would be a weird and annoying
precedent that forces companies to spend extra money just to stay
indexed; that impacts small companies more than it does large companies.
There's no real point to a .jobs TLD, except that SHRM wants to bleed
the corporate community for a few extra dollars.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----