Talk:Recruiter

Naming Companies

I removed all the names and links of specific companies. I don't think they are necessary for the article to make sense, rather they only server a promotional purpose for the companies. Likewise for the paragraph about the AESC, it was moved to an external link at the bottom. Zarzwell 09:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Zarzwell: I understand why including certain companies, in a crowded space, might be unfair. It would be promotional because we would be giving awareness to one company over the other. But I don't see why we cannot include a company that is unique and innovative. Articles about technology must include names of companies, why not our article? There is more to recruiting today than traditional agencies and consultancies. Online platforms such as Reflik exist for recruiters to make a lot in recruiter fees. I don't think it is justified to not give people interested in recruitment this information. As far as I know (and I know a lot about recruiting) there is nothing like it. It is the first of its kind.Thewizkid23 (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some discussion about the compensation methods for contingent recruiters would be helpful, since similar discussion is provided about retained recruiters. Also possibly moving contingent out of the "Relative Advantages" section and making it its own section with an entry in the ToC. 209.163.254.3 13:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to declare an interest, being one of these people, I know the general rates of fees of course, but it's tough to avoid original research since very few if any firms publish numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicConnor (talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite?

I've done some superficial changes, but to be honest the whole article needs radical attention; getting some clarity (and removing the duplication) between this article, executive search and headhunting would be an excellent start. And why so much here on the practice in Ireland?! - bizarre. Perhaps some kind soul who knows the subject could take all this on. Carbonix 18:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, we should merge Executive search into this article just like fr:Recruteur was the same case.~~--Tlrmq (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should merge Recruiter#Executive_Search into Executive search just like fr:Recruteur, see [1] .--Tlrmq (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Text

I restored text removed by User:Kingturtle in this revision. Looking at the article revision history, it seems more likely that [2] took the text from Wikipedia than vice versa. Jfire (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recruitment in Ireland

I have removed this whole section. There is no justification for a generalist article to have a subsection on recruitment in Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spudbynight (talk • contribs) 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talent Acquisition

The Talent Acquisition text leads the reader to believe that it just applies to sales people/roles. Talent Acquisition is not confined to sales roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.230.50 (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]