My limited understanding (I don’t use FB even though I have a page) is that FB pages with privacy settings will still turn up in a Google search, but their contents would be hidden by FB when you tried to view it. Just because you tell Facebook that you don’t want strangers to view the site doesn’t mean that Google will pretend it doesn’t even exist.
And yes, I would immediately assume she’s hiding something on her own page and/or has been burned by not hiding something about herself. I would have immediately whipped out my phone and googled her.
I have a very shallow social media profile - LinkedIn and Facebook, and I rarely go to either of them, and each only contains basic info on me.
I concur with the others here who think your social media profile somehow is an indicator of something important for hiring you - it’s not (unless the job requires it). Now, if they fire you because of your social media posting, well that would be another thread.
I had someone tell me years ago to ditch my Yahoo email address during a job search - people would think I was not very tech-savvy. That has the same overtones as this social media thing.
However, maybe if I indicate I am a part of the SDMB community, that will earn me some street cred, right?
As I’ve mentioned before, I DO have a social media presence. (my desktops’s issues have kept me off Twitter). Much of what I have on Twitter, and lesser extent Facebook (“friend” mentioned it today BTW), is NSFW, so obviously I wouldn’t get a call back.
Skald, I appreciate you want to have a light touch on subordinates, but I think Omar Little raises a good point in post # 20.
It might be worth asking your subordinate how she would respond to an allegation that she didn’t offer a job because of something on the applicant’s web page, like race or religion. If she doesn’t have a good answer, is she potentially opening up your company to a liability?
It’s just too easy to make a stupid mistake. And every mistake remains public forever.
So for me, having no Facebook page is a plus when hiring somebody. It hints that he is a serious candidate for the job, somebody who understands responsiblity and long-term consequences.
When I lived in SF, there were three (that I know of) people in the Bay Area with same first and last names (first is common, have never met anyone not related with same surname).
2 of us were in the same business. I got some of his calls, I suspect he got one or two of mine.
I also received both a card and a gift for somebody’s birthday. I was going to return the gift (trivial trinket or food item), then thought: if this person is sending a gift to someone for whom she does not have an address, I am going to let her go… a learning experience.
I have no social network exposure, have never even looked at the sites; how conceited do you have to be to think others are eager to hear your life’s story?
I’d use my gmail address for a job search, because the name is better, but I wish that someday someone would tell me to ditch my Yahoo address for that reason. That I could tell him I was using email before he was probably born, and if he knew how to send email without DNS. Or what “bang” means.
It would be fun.
I also loathe FB and other social networks, but in some cases is necessary evil. If you ask me, no harm done if someone does not have one. Even if it is music superstar or master of social networking. As for me I have one, but don’t use it as personal network (who the heck want to know about my daily bowel movements), but for advertising my products. OTOH I do care about general Internet recognizability.
Semi anecdote here.
Once I was getting ready for job interview for quality engineer and asked their HR person (via email) if they want long or short CV. They want short of course. I wrote back “myname@google, when can i drop by?” Aaaand then … Silence.
I think that it’s in the interest if both employees and employers for employers to consider their (potential) employees’ private social media activity hands off, unless a problem arises. Employees have a moral right to have their own private lives and employers shouldn’t expose themselves to liability by snooping without a prior cause.
In Skald’s particular case, I would have taken a much stronger line against the employee’s snooping.
In today’s world, using online networks to understand your industry, promote your company and, most importantly, protect your reputation is everyone’s job. For me, it’d be a strike against someone if they didn’t do that in their personal life as well. I’d be wary of someone who didn’t understand social networks and know how to use them.
I don’t have a common name - but I do know that there are at least four of me - one I have the social security number for because she has a similar gmail address and her work sent a copy of her W2 to me…
I also think employers need to be REALLY careful about checking facebook pages - check someone’s facebook page and now you know things that HR doesn’t let you ask during an interview so they can’t face discrimination charges. Mine will tell you I’m married, have kids, am a UU, am straight. Make any decision based off those factors and you have a problem…
This came up recently - I’ve got 5 e-mail addresses that are variants of my name. One is straight-up my name, another my initials, the rest variants of the two, with the last being epbrown01. Some younger relatives were blown away by this, since it’s almost impossible to do this anymore on Yahoo or gmail - everything’s taken. It was weird “That’s your e-mail? Wow, you must be old!” moment, like my SS# was two or something.
This seems a curious position to take. It is possible that someone understands social networks, knows how to use them and decides that there is no net benefit for them. Hardly a cause to be wary of them.
To me that actually shows a sensible head as it is perfectly possible understand your industry as an anonymous entity but to trash you and your companies reputation online without any effort at all one really needs a social media presence.
So I’d take the completely opposite view to you. Social media online presence = greater potential problem. Someone who goes to the trouble of getting the most out the online world while not exposing themselves or my company to undue risk sounds like a good catch to me.
