How Do LinkedIn and XING Optimize for High-Paying Matches?

[zak100]

Summary:: Hi,
I am reading a research paper. It describes an advantage of linkedIn and XING which I can't understand. I need help in understand that:

Paper
at:
PrivateJobMatch: A Privacy-Oriented Deferred Multi-Match Recommender System for Stable Employment

While centralized
platforms such as LinkedIn [11] and XING [3] have the potential to
address these issues, they use a business-oriented best-fit optimization
strategy that favors higher-paying employers and candidates
over the well-being of the job market as a whole. However, addressing
this coordination failure in a neutral way, may significantly
help both job-seekers and employers identify well-suited matches,
betting the job market outcome.

Somebody please guide me what is the advantage of LINKEDIn and XING in the context of business oriented best fit optimization startegy.

Zulfi.

 

[sysprog]

Perhaps you are confusing what is in the best interests of a job seeker vis-a-vis the best interests of an employer.

 

[zak100]

Hi,
Thanks for your response. Your clue refines my question. I can't understand this:

that favors higher-paying employers and candidates over the well-being of the job market as a whole

employers are higher payers, that's fine but candidates are not, so no need of "and" here. What does it mean by "over the well-being of the job market as a whole".

Some body please guide me.

Zulfi.

 

[sysprog]

that favors higher-paying employers and candidates over the well-being of the job market as a whole

I think that "and candidates" could be interpreted as something like ', and candidates for highly-paid positions,'.

 

[zak100]

How is this going to favor the market, if we consider only highly paid employers? or they forgetting the whole market and protecting the interest of the highly paid employers only?

Zulfi.

 

[sysprog]

How is this going to favor the market, if we consider only highly paid employers? or they forgetting the whole market and protecting the interest of the highly paid employers only?

Zulfi.

Please -- mirroring your earlier point, it's not "highly paid employers" -- the relevant to that issue point of the article seemed to me to be a criticism of favoring the high-end over the well-being of the whole of the job market.

 

[zak100]

Hi,
Thanks for your insight. RS should not support highly paid employers over the well-being of the whole of the job market.

Zulfi.

 

[PeterDonis]

Moderator's note: Moved thread to General Discussion.

 

[sysprog]

@zak100 It's not "highly paid employers" -- please think it through.

 

[zak100]

Hi, I have thought it. I have put it to the forum for the discussion. I don't know what you guys mean by general discussion.

Zulfi;

 

[dlgoff]

Hi, I have thought it. I have put it to the forum for the discussion. I don't know what you guys mean by general discussion.

Zulfi;

Moved to the General Discussion Forum.