Interesting. I've been trying to take an anti-keyword approach to finding an SDET lead for myself. I've been trying to profile for different characteristics. I work at a company that makes a security app. Most folks don't put "security" in their resumes (unless they're trying really hard to target us, in which case they seem to include the word (in BOLD) like too much pepper that spoiled the soup). So I look for other things that tell me that either the candidate worked on security for a given product or was some kind of security go-to person for the project. Heck, I consider "hacker" or "cracker" to be keywords of interest. But it's more than keywords to me. I'm looking for patterns in their employment histories that tell me they're really security geeks.

I'm some total newb. How do actual recruiters go about this?

Thanks for putting up with yet another semi-off-topic question from me,
- Drew

Hey Drew - Not really an off topic question given our interest in connect employers with jobseekers. :)

I think a lot of recruiters are still using keyword searches, but I know a few are also bucking that trend and trying new ways of finding folks.  Gretchen and I have really moved to the idea of "profiling" or developing "personas" for different technical groups of people - where they've worked, what their hobbies might be, where they hang out online, where they go to get answers to technical questions - and then trying to connect with these people.

I think you are using a smart approach.  Not everyone will have a resume so you'll have to think of other ways to identify where these people might be and patterns of employment is a great place to start.

Best of luck!  SDET is a tricky profile :)

Hope you don't mind if I continue this, but . . .

I've also noticed that agencies bringing folks to us tend to have candidates who hop from job to job frequently (at least once or twice a year for several years running). That seems like a pattern to me. I've been passing on interviews from folks who don't stay in one place longer than that. I figure we want someone who wants to be invested in what s/he's doing.

Is that something that recruiters profile, too?

If I could go totally off-topic, could you please post on how the "thank you, but no thank you" letter works with candidates that didn't quite make the cut? I'm in a spot. I interviewed some folks recently that are bright and talented and have great futures in front of them, but they just hadn't honed their skills to the point we were looking for. I'd love to give them interviewing tips about how to take control of the interview and how to practice whiteboarding, but that seems inapropriate and also seems like the kind of thing that could land me in court. Any clues for me? I'm (mostly) clueless. At Microsoft this was all in the hands of hiring managers and HR . . .

There are many things that you can profile a candidate on, some work and some don't.  It depends on what patterns you are seeing as you speak with people and how those relate to qualifications.  Unfortunately, there's no exact science when dealing with people as you know :)

The "turn down" letters are definitely a difficult issue.  You want to be informative, but also protect yourself and your company from potential litigation.  If you have an HR person at your current company, you may want to run anything responses past them first.  You may also consider one of our coaching sessions to help address some of these common recruiting issues.  Feel free to contact us directly if you are interested.  We'll also work on a future post along these lines as well.