We just shipped an update to Jobster.com that improves the quality and relevance of the job summaries displayed next to search hits; for example see the results of a search for search engine jobs in Seattle.

Google has trained users to expect hit summaries that are frequently fragmentary and hard to understand. A hit for “string theory” might include the summary “Interest in string theory is driven largely by the hope that it will prove to be a … It is not yet known whether string theory will be able to describe a …”

Vertical job search services, Jobster included, largely followed Google’s lead in their initial implementations of hit summaries. It’s a challenging problem to choose a few sentences that capture the essence of a long job description. Our next iteration is a good step forward but there’s clearly lots more we can do.

I believe that even for general web search it should be possible to greatly improve the quality of the summaries so that users have to do less pogo-sticking to find the results they want. One example is what Live is doing with their academic search. Notice how you can mouse over the hits on the Live results for search engine to view the title, abstracts, and authors of each hits.

When general web search summaries become good and comprehensive enough, it may not even be necessary in some cases to click through to the site hosting the content, which will result in increased tension between search engine and site authors and increased pressure to find ways to compensate content authors regardless of where their content is hosted.

In authentic conversations and recruiting, I asked whether the web couldn’t introduce a more real and meaningful conversation between employers and jobseekers.

Colin Kingsbury at HRM Direct replies with some well placed cautionary notes regarding the strong feelings inspired by hiring and firing, and the danger that cranks and negative commentary will come to dominate the conversation:

The problem here comes with the term meaningful. It is surprising how difficult it is to find out what your customers really think of you, whether you have five of them or five million. To the extent that “social computing” techniques help draw authentic and unfiltered customer opinion out, they will help businesses to do better. The problem is that many of the critics you may find yourelf engaging are not really honest brokers…

Recruiting is going to encounter an especially large challenge here because like dating, it is a process of rejecting people. No matter how nicely you do it, some people are going to take it badly, and a few of them are going to make it their life’s mission to cause you as much pain as you caused them. Unfortunately, it’s precisely these kinds of critics that take the most time and energy to deal with.

Of course, someone who got rejected for a job at Morgan Stanley has always had the right to carry a sandwich board on the sidewalk in front of the building and hand out leaflets. But this took energy, and reached very few people. With social computing, the gadflies can reach a global audience from the comfort of their sofas.

And contra Ms. Li, I think bringing these sorts of critics into your own forum lends them a credibility they might otherwise lack. Today any crank with an axe to grind can lash out at TGI Fridays on his blog and have it come up page one of a Google search for “work TGI Fridays”. But, the casual web browser will also play a little game of “consider the source” and perhaps conclude, “this guy is a crank.”**

To wit, MySpace and Blogger are like the sidewalk, and you can’t legally shut up someone who is determined to make a scene there. But, should you invite them into the lobby and offer them a refreshing beverage? And don’t forget, when you ask them to leave, all their friends may show up to join the protest. After all, it’s certainly not your best interests they care most about.

Is there no way to sustain a forum that provides value in the middle ground between “Careers at ShinyHappyCo” and f***edcompany.com? Perhaps unrealistically positive and depressingly negative forums about companies predominate because it’s so difficult to create a balanced forum.

Assuming a balanced employment forum could be created, would companies be better off encouraging participation, or attempting to limit employees to officially controlled spaces only?

Colin draws an interesting comparison with online dating services, which face similar issues:

If you really want to see where this is headed, I would keep an eye on the dating services. They are well ahead of the recruiting space in terms of sophistication in these areas, and the issues are very similar.

Sounds like it’s worth checking out the dating sites (with appropriate disclaimers in advance to our spouses, of course!)