Are You Good Enough For Google?

Exactly one month ago I gave up the golden handcuffs keeping me at Google. I left to build full-time, and I haven't looked back. Except when people have asked, and it happens almost every day. To be exact, 118 people have questioned why I quit and just as many have sought my guidance on getting in. If you want a job at Google or other top companies, here's my take.

It's a wonderful life if you can make the cut.

Volleyball, olympic size pools and personal trainers. Rock walls between floors, slides instead of steps and bowling alleys to pass the time. Breakfast, lunch and dinner on demand and masseuses in multitude. Really, it’s Disneyland for adults.

For four and a half years, I worked at Google. First, partnering with websites on AdSense and then building the North American sales strategy for Google’s Ad Exchange. After moving to New York City, I led my team’s east coast recruiting efforts for almost a year.

I’ve reviewed at least 500 resumes, screened more than 100 candidates and hired 12 superstars. In most instances, the candidates didn’t have a fighting chance.

Truth be told, neither did I. You and I have a better shot at being struck by lightning (576K:1) or winning an Olympic medal (660K:1) than getting into Google. What no one will tell you is this:

The odds will never be in your favor

Let’s do some simple math. Google receives more than two million applications per year for roughly 5,000 jobs. Off the bat, your chances are .0025%. And that’s assuming all things are equal, but they rarely are. Politics, people and yes, processes get in the way. Even for a company filled with the smartest people in the world, Google relies on technology to search applicants, surface the best candidates and slot them in the right role.

Learn how to beat the system.

Most of us fill out a form and click submit, completely unaware of how deep the black hole runs. Applying for a job online is akin to playing the lottery. It might work, but chances are you’re just wasting time.

Here’s how you stack the deck…

Forget going to Google. Make Google come to you. It’s a little known fact, but a recruiter’s role isn’t to find talent. Real recruiters only screen qualified candidates.

Let me explain.

If you have 2 million applications then choosing the right one is like finding a needle in a haystack. The task is nearly impossible. Walmart reportedly receives more than 5 million applications a year and Microsoft processes 50,000 resumes a week. Competition at the top is crazy, but don’t think small, lesser known companies are any easier. Although it varies with the company and the job, the Electronic Recruiting Exchange (ERE) reports that on average 250 resumes are received for each corporate job opening.

Even if you had 200 or say 150 resumes, would you review each one? Would you give the 149th candidate the same time and attention as the first? I’m sure most recruiters mean well but, by themselves, they’re not set-up for success. So they leave the heavy lifting to something else.

A Helping Hand

The first person to review your resume isn’t a person at all. It’s likely a software program known as an Applicant Tracking System (ATS). To recruiters, ATS is the greatest thing since sliced bread: it saves them time and the company money.You submit your application, ATS scans your credentials and gives you a score. You’re then ranked against other candidates and a decision is made based on “data.” More about this later.

All good right? WRONG.

For you and me, ATS is a weapon of mass rejection. Job search services provider Preptel reports that 75 percent of candidates' are instantly unqualified as soon as they submit their resumes. In a matter of milliseconds, a computer makes up its mind and most likely passes on your potential. Like I said, we never had a fighting chance.

Big Data

You’ve probably heard of web analytics, but what about people analytics? Today, human capital is measured by resume robots and social media scores. This is not to say we’ve taken the ‘human’ out of human resources, but the nature of recruitment has changed.

Everything is tracked, including social media activity and the degree to which you’re already ‘connected’ to the company. Did you respond to an email? Were you late for an interview? Algorithms already predict World Series championships (Go Giants!) and fluctuations in the stock market. Why not forecast the success of one candidate over another?

Success is relative so it can be measured by almost anything, including:

• Internet Presence - Articles, blogs and social media mentions, particularly on LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and Google+
• Past Performance - Employment background, work history, native talent and earned credentials from the applications and resumes you submit
• Personality Tests - Skill sets and behaviors can be modeled from your answers to scenario based surveys and tests

Once the data is collected, ATS goes to work. Like Google’s super secret search algorithm, no one knows how data sets are organized and analyzed, but you can bet it differs by employer and role.

Beat the Bot

The gatekeeper blocking your application goes by the name ATS. To beat the bot, you must optimize the keywords in your resume. Google popularized the analysis of keywords to understand the content of web pages. That concept is then placed into context, relative to the competition. The most relevant results appear on top. To this day, the quantity and quality of keywords is still a major factor in Google’s PageRank. Your resume must work the same way.

Every industry has its jargon, slang and colloquialisms. What matters most to ATS is the use, uniqueness and relevance of keywords. To stand out in the system, consider the following tips:

• Selection - Include keywords, phrases and skills repeated in the job description. You can also review the company’s career website, the professional profiles of current employees and similar jobs. The keywords you discover are likely the same exact keywords a recruiter has programmed ATS to pick-up.
• Density - Focus on no more than three keywords, and keep the frequency between 2% to 4% of all words. We call this keyword density. If you find yourself repeating the same keyword over-and-over again, you can always use synonyms.
• Formatting - ATS might not understand fancier fonts so stick to Arial or Times New Roman. Also, avoid white text and shades of grey. Black is perfect. And, unless otherwise instructed, submit a Word doc instead of a PDF. In all ways possible, you want ATS to read what you wrote. Otherwise, what’s the point?

When everything is said and done, what recruiters receive is a list of qualified candidates. From here, they go to work screening potential hires. I told you recruiters don’t focus on finding talent! They focus on vetting the cream of the crop, and they look to the world’s largest professional network for further help.

The One Stop Shop

This may come as a shock, but LinkedIn is the largest ATS around. Think about it. You and I create online resumes in the form of a profile, they’re searchable and then we connect. Mostly with other people looking for a job, but then there’s this secret matrix reserved for recruiters interested in reaching top talent.

Remember when I told you to make Google come to you? Well, LinkedIn is your number one tool for turning that dream into reality.

94 percent of recruiters use LinkedIn to vet candidates. They’re checking your professional background and gauging your level of online activity. More than anything else, they’re direct sourcing. They’re fishing for talent, and when they catch wind of a candidate it’s time for the approach.

Tell me you’ve received a similar message in the past:

Hi Michael, How are you? I hope you don't mind me reaching out to you directly, but your profile looks great! We are searching for a "rock-star" performer for our team and your background is stellar. Do you have time to chat on the phone tomorrow or this week? Your background is stellar. Thanks!

As spammy and generic as it sounds, companies are paying LinkedIn up to $8,000 per user per year for the right to message you. Recruiters are combing through your work experiences, skills, education and other credentials. Sound familiar?

Just like ATS, LinkedIn looks at the keywords in the headline, job titles and summary sections of your profile. Then, you’re given a score and that score determines your rank. If you want to appear on a recruiter's radar you need to think about keyword relevance, the quality of your connections and whether LinkedIn is worth paying for.

Premium Positioning

LinkedIn first offered premium accounts to sales professionals and then recruiters. As the professional network has evolved they were gracious enough to offer similar services to you and me. Now job seekers near and far must ask themselves one question: should I pay for LinkedIn?

Yes!

LinkedIn promises to bump your profile to the top of search results. Just like Google’s sponsored ads, your profile will appear at the top as a ‘Featured Applicant.’ If LinkedIn search behavior follow’s Google, 75% of recruiters will never visit the second page of search results. So it goes without saying that it’s even more important to be on top.

No!

It’s flattering to be contacted, but why wait for an opportunity? Go get it! If you believe in taking the proactive approach to LinkedIn, you can ask for introductions from mutual parties, join groups to contact any member and network your way to new connections. Plus, you’re saving $48/month. Sometimes, the “scrappy” approach inspires a level of creativity that money can’t buy.

Like most things, there is no right or wrong answer. Personally, I pay for LinkedIn but it’s not for everyone. Try the free way first and, if you find you want to be featured in front of recruiters, give premium a try.

From HR to Sales

For LinkedIn, premium accounts are apart of their business and a key component of how they make money. For recruiters, you are their business and they pitch you like any other product or service. In that sense, think of recruiters as saleswomen and what they’re selling is you.

Like more traditional sales, recruiters have quotas. Their performance is judged by the number of hires they get through the door. They’re looking for the best candidates to pitch to hiring managers. Ultimately, it’s the team's decision who they hire. Your recruiter is only making an introduction. It’s up to you to close the deal.

In the case of Google, hiring decisions are made by a hiring committee that includes the CEO. After 4 to 9 interviews, on average, feedback is submitted and a candidate is further vetted. Those that pass face a final review by the hiring committee, consisting of senior managers and directors. They review every candidate that’s hired into Google, taking into account interview feedback, work history and the infamous hiring packet.

The hiring packet is your portfolio: it’s all the reasons why you deserve the job. It’s your final pitch.

The Brand called YOU

You are a brand, and like any business, it’s your job to sell yourself accordingly. From the moment you make your first contact to the final round interview, promote yourself. If Google is the end, then you are the beginning. You, Incorporated.

What do you have to offer a company? How will your colleagues benefit from having you around? Your brand is more than the impression you leave behind. It’s the fruit of your labor, and nothing speaks louder than your work. Henry Ford said it best, “You can’t build a reputation on what you’re going to do.”

They key to building your brand is doing work that creates value and strengthens credibility. To measure your meaning, consider the following:

• Market - Who is your audience? Who stands to benefit from your skill set?
• Message - What makes you unique? What is your dramatic difference?
• Medium - How do you share your story? In what ways are you standing out?
• Messenger - How does your online and offline persona match your brand?
• Money - How do you measure and capture your value?

Software engineer, graphic designer, or AdWords account manager, when it comes to Google, or any any top company, you’re an All-Star. What you’re selling is beyond your capacity to work well. It’s intellectual curiosity and a desire to overcome business challenges and solve problems.

Hiring managers are looking for solutions and it’s your job to come up with an answer. The first test is ATS and those that pass move to the front of the line. We’ve always thought of friends and former colleagues as sources of referrals, but recruiters refer candidates too. In fact, they’re the number one source of referrals to hiring managers. Get on their good side.

The way to get noticed by Google and other top companies is simple: be the best and sell yourself at each stage of the game. It takes competence and confidence, and no one can market your brand better than you can. Start today!

Google Wants Kids to Search the Darndest Things

Kids say the darndest things — and what they do say may make Google's search engine something of a mind reader.

Search engines already finish your sentences. Start typing "president" into Google or Bing or Yahoo and you're immediately presented choices you may have been thinking of. But, as you see from the examples below, the choices vary widely:

They also assume some pretty non-obvious things, like I am interested in politics, or in a particular president — or, as in the case of Bing, that I am a Turkish national?

Also, that I am probably an adult.

What if Google knew more about me before I touched a key?

A newly-revealed initiative by Google may be an important building block for an enhanced search engine that could further zero in on what I really want to know. In a lengthy interview with USA Today, Google VP of Engineering Pavni Diwanji talks about a "Google for Kids" initiative that would tailor some products for the under-13 set.

While she talks about protecting and serving kids (and their parents) it's not hard to connect some dots. This is a powerful way to achieve something it failed to do with Google+ — learn who its users are.

Diwanji recounts a story involving her own daughter, who pointed out the biggest flaw in the world's most-used search engine. It happened when she Googled 'trains.' "She came to me and said, 'Mommy, you should tell Google about Thomas the Tank Engine, because Google obviously doesn't know about him.'"

The secret to robust search is context, but greatness in search is requiring the searcher to provide as little ad hoc context as possible. It's a good first guess that you might be searching for something others are — hence those predictive type ahead suggestions.

But with more implied context, search can serve up better results. And nobody wants to craft Boolean sentences to refine the yield. We all want to live by the motto: "Do what I mean — not what I say."

Children are a great focus group. Kids searching the darndest things could inform other customizations that will yield results based on the data about me and only me: that I am a fireman, don't eat meat, or own a classic car. Relevant things that I wouldn't even think to mention in any given search session.

Backchannel Editor in Chief Steven Levy, author of "Inside the Plex," sees this as a natural fit. "What Google seems to want to do for children is very much in the spirit of what it wants to do for all of us — show us personalized results," he wrote in reply to an email.

Sure, there are privacy concerns (which Diwanji acknowledges), especially when it comes to targeting children. Google's entire business model is about looking over our shoulders to profile us for marketers, which is why special care and special laws are required when children are involved.

But I think this is a right-headed effort that doesn't exploit children. It leverages their unique thought processes to come up with answers for questions we wouldn't know to ask without them. The array of Google products tailored for children (not clear yet what they will all be) will be controlled by a parental dashboard, not by little Billy and Mary.

Is this right-track / wrong track? Will — should — the other search engines do something similar?

Your Right To Be "Un-Googled" And The Irony Of The Case

There is more than a touch of irony about Mario Costeja Gonzalez’s victory over search giant Google in the European courts, which grants him the “right to be forgotten” in Google search results.

Having successfully fought to have links to news reports of his financial affairs removed from search results, on privacy grounds, his name is unlikely to ever be forgotten now.

This week the European Union Court of Justice found in Costeja Gonzalez’s favor when it ruled that links to irrelevant or out-of-date information about individuals should be removed, on request. He had argued that issues raised in two articles in the newspaper La Vanguardia – and indexed by Google – mentioning that his house had been repossessed due to his social security debts, were out of date and no longer relevant.

His case is timely as support is strong in Europe for a “right to be forgotten”, giving anyone the right to have their personal information removed when it is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant”. The court-ruling, which can't be appealed, appears to show that European law supports this right – and Google (as well as a lot of other big data hoarders) could soon find themselves faced with a flood of similar requests.

Apparently, the Spaniard is not worried that his name will now feature far more prominently than it previously did in Google results for many years to come – in fact he has been clear that he is happy to have his name associated with the case. As he told the Guardian newspaper: “I was fighting for the elimination of data that adversely affects people’s honour, dignity and exposes their private lives. Everything that undermines human beings, that’s not freedom of expression.”

Google of course sees things differently – having called the decision “disappointing” – and argued during proceedings that such actions could amount to censorship. The law will not only apply to Google, but to all other search engines including Yahoo and Microsoft's Bing.

The “right to be forgotten” proposals in Europe in many ways reflect the recently passed Californian “eraser” law – requiring tech companies to remove material posted by a minor, if they request it – due to take effect next year.

The landmark case may be settled but of course debate will rage on over the issues at its core for some time yet. And it is unclear at this stage how it might apply to social media companies such as Facebook or Twitter. Does this mean that anyone who doesn’t like something which has been said about them online can demand that it is struck from the record?

At the moment, this seems unlikely – the court was clear in its ruling that publishers will have various defences – including public interest – with which to resist requests for information removal.

I hope therefore that it means criminals or corrupt public officials won’t be able to simply ask for links to news articles about their crimes be deleted simply because they would rather people forgot them. My fear is that there is a grey area in all of this. Some might see it as legitimate that a restaurant ask for bad reviews to be taken down if they are “no longer relevant” following a change of chef? Or a builder ask for his terrible feedback on the local “trusted trader” websites to be consigned to oblivion? The danger is that is could open the door for rogue traders to clean their sheet.

Campaign group Index on Censorship has been forthright with its criticism of the decision – calling it: “Akin to marching into a library and forcing it to pulp books.” For me, it all depends on how this new law (which currently only applies to citizens of the European Union) is implemented in practice. It will surely make life more complicated and expensive for search engine providers.

Whichever side of the fence you’re on, this ruling could have a big impact on anyone involved with storing or publishing data, and I’d love to hear your views. Do you see this as an important step toward more control of your public data or do you see it as censorship? Please share your views...