Talk:CareerBuilder

Discussion
Probably notable enough, but reads like a press release. --Nagle 18:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I put the "advert" template and the www stub on the page to alert folks.--Msr69er 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How about some history on the site? Who founded it? Have any books or magazine articles talked about CareerBuilder? We should not have to rely on just the company's information for this article, but rather two or three third-party sources.--Msr69er 20:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to rewrite it a bit. I don't know anything more about the site to add. Can we have CareerBuilder.com point to this article as well? Currently it doesn't. 71.116.241.123 01:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Added info about MS. -- Current CB Employee. 18:23, 15 May 2007

Impartiality?
Doesn't seem very impartial. Sounds like someone from the CareerBuilder marketing department wrote this!
 * I totally agree, which is why I have tagged it.-- Kerotan Leave Me a Message  Have  a nice day :) 20:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just curious, has anyone ever gotten a job form careerbuilder? --Sfiga (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My personal experince with this site is that it shares email and other personal information to spammers and con-artists. It also won't let me delete my account. This article on consumeraffairs.com indicates my experience is not isolated:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/05/career_building_scam.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.180.228 (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

They can't both be #1
Both the Monster and the Career Builder pages claim to be the biggest job sites. Either one's wrong, or they've done some clever spin that shouldn't be in Wikipedia anyways. Brendinooo (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe Monster is bigger by any measure - and the numbers cited in both entries bear this out. Could someone correct this? 64.242.9.98 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See also section
I have, in three edits removed various see alsos. Most seemed unrelated other than being vaguely related classified ad-type sites. The two sites I left are other job-finding sites. I am not entirely convinced they need to be in the article either, since providing a complete list of job sites is not really an ideal use of Wikipedia. What do people think? --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Charging for resumes
CareerBuilder does NOT (as this article currently says) charge job seekers for uploading resumes. But they have started to offer paid products related to resumes, including having a resume "expert" help you and buying small "icons" that supposedly help companies notice your resume. 66.251.234.26 (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

'Add Campaigns'
Is it not spelt with one 'd'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.46.230 (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on CareerBuilder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110418063012/http://www.businessweek.com/careers/bplc/2007/91.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/careers/bplc/2007/91.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Cleaned up using AutoEd
Hi! I've applied a basic editing script to this article, which should have gone through and tweaked any little formatting errors. I believe the next step should be addressing advertising language, and bringing the article more in line with neutrality. Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)