This was such big news around FB because nobody has heard this, while there should be a promotion.There is nothing about it in the documentation.There is no “please upgrade” sign, just the wrong results.There are additional “circumstantial” signs (I watch a lot of British TV!) that it is not that LinkedIn wants us all to buy LinkedIn Recruiter by intentionally restricting search on : There are other examples and variations of keyword searches that look odd shared in the two LinkedIn and Facebook streams above. Why is the first one not working? I think, it is a bug (or bugs). There are no Boolean operators in these searches. blending david galley – one result (as it should be.).david galley blending– currently no results (wrong).Here is an example to prove my point: David Galley has the keyword “blending” in the About section of his profile. It sounded like something Recruiters expect of LinkedIn, to be pushed into higher-paid products.īut I believe that what we are experiencing with NOT is not intentional (which means there is a disconnect between some managers and developers at LinkedIn we have observed it before.) The unhappy “news” flew around various Facebook groups. In the LinkedIn thread, we heard from a LinkedIn manager that the keyword search in (including the business accounts) is not “Boolean” and should be used to find people you know. Some suggested changing the syntax – but neither extra parentheses, quotation marks, nor the minus instead of NOT help. My share of “what is going on here?” on Facebook got 2.5K+ views and reactions on LinkedIn – 41K+ views and climbing! Most commenters complained about intermittently seeing this too. Then I saw weird results without the NOT, but the NOT “deficiencies” was easier to illustrate on social media. What is going on here? The operator NOT did not exclude – even highlighted – the word “recruitment.” I started running into this phenomenon a few weeks ago, but the output seemed random: sometimes, NOT was acknowledged, sometimes, ignored.
0 kommentar(er)
