[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Yes, usually their advisors are unbiased, apart from being biased toward the industry or area on which they are advising. You're getting way off the topic though.

People don't have time to find the "true self" of someone, which is why they look at Facebook, check references and interview.

I am not patronising and belittling you, Jack. You have nothing else to offer this argument but a littany of reasons why someone should be able to party, post their pics on their facebook page, not have people judge them and give them a job over a more suitably settled, mature, discreet applicant. It's not going to happen.

So they are very biased then, obviously.
I feel jack has provided sone very good examples of why this is an unworkable way of filtering staff, it is both unfair and underhanded.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So they are very biased then, obviously.
I feel jack has provided sone very good examples of why this is an unworkable way of filtering staff, it is both unfair and underhanded.

Well... yes. They are biased toward the area they actually work in or what would be the point? Jack implied it was all a scam, all getting in bed together... it's not like that at all. Anyway, that's not the topic here, is it. I only addressed it because Jack raised it. If you want to talk about MPs, this is the wrong thread.

I'm sure you would agree with Jack.

It's far from unworkable, and it is not underhanded to look at information that is accessible by any member of the public with an internet connection. They're not hacking into accounts, they're not following them on a night out, all they're doing is looking at stuff they have posted for the world to see. It's funny how people on here actually involved in recruiting staff and know the many pitfalls think there's nothing wrong with this.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

How many times can I say it annie, it is an invasion of privacy.
You are taking someone on to fill a position this to my mind does not entitle anyone to make judgements on what they do with their free time.
I am in no way trivialising your position on this, I just don't happen to agree it is possible to correctly assess the character of a candidate with information attained through social media.

I'm going to field this one for Annie.

How can it be an invasion of privacy if the information is in the public domain? You can say it as many times as you like, it doesn't make it so.

You're not assessing someone's character just from Facebook or other social media, you're assessing it with a combination of things... interview, references, CV... accessible social media. People who recruit aren't generally stupid. They take many factors into account and the more factors they have, the more informed a decision they can make.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Well... yes. They are biased toward the area they actually work in or what would be the point? Jack implied it was all a scam, all getting in bed together... it's not like that at all. Anyway, that's not the topic here, is it. I only addressed it because Jack raised it. If you want to talk about MPs, this is the wrong thread.

I'm sure you would agree with Jack.

It's far from unworkable, and it is not underhanded to look at information that is accessible by any member of the public with an internet connection. They're not hacking into accounts, they're not following them on a night out, all they're doing is looking at stuff they have posted for the world to see. It's funny how people on here actually involved in recruiting staff and know the many pitfalls think there's nothing wrong with this.

You suggested jack was not experienced enough to comment on the subject, he countered with MP's are not experienced in the fields they make decisions in , neither are their advisors.
Which is true.
You then suggested they are biased, which would imply they are in bed together. That is true.
I did not raise MP's into this debate, jack did to reinforce his point.
Why are you sure I would agree with jack?
Once again I don't see how looking at a social media page can give accurate insight into the persona of a candidate.
You don't have to be in recruiting to ponder this surely?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm going to field this one for Annie.

How can it be an invasion of privacy if the information is in the public domain? You can say it as many times as you like, it doesn't make it so.

You're not assessing someone's character just from Facebook or other social media, you're assessing it with a combination of things... interview, references, CV... accessible social media. People who recruit aren't generally stupid. They take many factors into account and the more factors they have, the more informed a decision they can make.

The senario given earlier was that you had 2 equally suitable candidates on paper and at interview.
Therefore that would suggest that the ultimate decision rests on the candidates profile page?
Well ok if you want to be pedantic it's not an invasion of privacy, however I would say that it leads to misrepresentation and judgements being unfairly levied at some individuals.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You suggested jack was not experienced enough to comment on the subject, he countered with MP's are not experienced in the fields they make decisions in , neither are their advisors.
Which is true.
You then suggested they are biased, which would imply they are in bed together. That is true.
I did not raise MP's into this debate, jack did to reinforce his point.
Why are you sure I would agree with jack?
Once again I don't see how looking at a social media page can give accurate insight into the persona of a candidate.
You don't have to be in recruiting to ponder this surely?

Jack was just as off-topic as you are going round the houses with the MPs thing. That's not the topic here. If you want to talk about MPs and their advisors, start a thread.

You don't have to be in recruiting to ponder it, no. But I think everyone in recruiting or at least concerned with taking on staff in some way has said just about everything there is to say, haven't they? Public domain? Best person for the job? All that stuff?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

The senario given earlier was that you had 2 equally suitable candidates on paper and at interview.
Therefore that would suggest that the ultimate decision rests on the candidates profile page?
Well ok if you want to be pedantic it's not an invasion of privacy, however I would say that it leads to misrepresentation and judgements being unfairly levied at some individuals.

Me correcting you on a point of law is not pedantic. Your continual struggle against, and grudging acceptance of, the fact that publicly accessible Facebook pages are not private property is pedantic.

The scenario you refer to is hypothetical. You are surmising that in a tie between two equally qualified and suitable candidates, the deciding factor would be social media, and I have not seen anyone who has any kind of handle on recruiting suggest that, there are far more factors to take into consideration. However, the candidate stupid enough to post pictures on a public site of them falling around drunk on a regular basis wouldn't sit well with me personally. I can't speak for anyone else.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Jack was just as off-topic as you are going round the houses with the MPs thing. That's not the topic here. If you want to talk about MPs and their advisors, start a thread.

You don't have to be in recruiting to ponder it, no. But I think everyone in recruiting or at least concerned with taking on staff in some way has said just about everything there is to say, haven't they? Public domain? Best person for the job? All that stuff?

It was a good point and well made actually, there are lots of people who make important decisions about all kinds of things but that analogy was apt.
They have said all they want to say in favour of this yes, but to have a debate you need two sides livia.
What about the points against, do they not deserve equal attention?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It was a good point and well made actually, there are lots of people who make important decisions about all kinds of things but that analogy was apt.
They have said all they want to say in favour of this yes, but to have a debate you need two sides livia.
What about the points against, do they not deserve equal attention?

Making ill-informed comments about MPs is not a good analogy, it's lashing out because you've nothing valid to say on the subject and so turn every argument around so you can moan about the government. You obviously know as much about MPs and their advisors as Jack does.

I understand what a debate is, Kizzy. I also understand what an argument is. There is a big difference. I think I have made my position very clear and posting the same thing backwards and forwards is not a debate Kizzy. So therefore I respectfully refer you to all my recent posts. They make my position quite clear and banging on about it for another ten exchanges isn't going to change that.

[Jack_]

Please drop the patronising attitude and indirect insults Livia. It says more about you than it does me and yet my age and maturity was the one brought to task earlier in the thread, ironically by you.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Please drop the patronising attitude and indirect insults Livia. It says more about you than it does me and yet my age and maturity was the one brought to task earlier in the thread, ironically by you.

I have made no indirect insults, Jack. I was quite clear and very direct. This is a debate. If you're touchy when people disagree and question your tenuous analogies, perhaps you should be in Chat and Games.

[Niamh.]

I have my FB set to private anyhow, only people who are friends with me can view my photos and wall posts etc. If you're happy to let anyone at all view your information on FB, why would a prospective employer looking at it be an issue?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Livia

I have made no indirect insults, Jack. I was quite clear and very direct. This is a debate. If you're touchy when people disagree and question your tenuous analogies, perhaps you should be in Chat and Games.

Yes, because saying things like 'I'll come back to you in a few years when you've had some experience' as some petty get-out clause from the argument isn't patronising in the slightest. And calling me 'touchy' and telling me that I should 'be in Chat and Games' isn't either. Of course not.

I'm not touchy when people disagree in the slightest, I will more than happily fight my corner, go and read my posts in the BB section every series if you want examples of that, but if someone attempts to patronise me, I will call them out on it and just resort to the same thing if needs be. It drags the debate down and it's ultimately quite pathetic. But you keep at it my love, whatever floats your boat eh

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Yes, because saying things like 'I'll come back to you in a few years when you've had some experience' as some petty get-out clause from the argument isn't patronising in the slightest. And calling me 'touchy' and telling me that I should 'be in Chat and Games' isn't either. Of course not.

I'm not touchy when people disagree in the slightest, I will more than happily fight my corner, go and read my posts in the BB section every series if you want examples of that, but if someone attempts to patronise me, I will call them out on it and just resort to the same thing if needs be. It drags the debate down and it's ultimately quite pathetic. But you keep at it my love, whatever floats your boat eh

Firstly Jack, what I actually said was: "I'd like to have this conversation with you when you are older and have a bit more life experience, have had a few interviews and maybe even sat on an interview panel or two. " Which is a little different to the way you've spun it. Isn't it.

You are very touchy. There is no need to "fight your corner". Try having a debate and seeing that you can disagree and make points without making a fight out of it, and without making rather tenuous analogies that detract from your point.

Your last sentence belittles you, frankly, and makes you look childish.

I have nothing more to add to this debate because it's turning into the usual ridiculous bunfight.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Making ill-informed comments about MPs is not a good analogy, it's lashing out because you've nothing valid to say on the subject and so turn every argument around so you can moan about the government. You obviously know as much about MPs and their advisors as Jack does.

I understand what a debate is, Kizzy. I also understand what an argument is. There is a big difference. I think I have made my position very clear and posting the same thing backwards and forwards is not a debate Kizzy. So therefore I respectfully refer you to all my recent posts. They make my position quite clear and banging on about it for another ten exchanges isn't going to change that.

I did not use the analogy in the first instance livia, I simply agreed with the comparison and have not mentioned the government at all.
You consantly harping back to that comment is counterproductive, once again this is a debate as far as I'm concerned.
You have made your position very clear thankyou, I hope I have too.

[Omah]

"I think the Ayes have it".