Let's talk about "diversification" for a second - this isn't a great word to use in this context and is somewhat problematic, but it was the word that was used colloquially to represent major changes to our search result algorithm and weighting of certain factors within that algorithm. We're not "diversifying" anything here; we are asking ourselves "how can we change the way our search result returns are searched by the algorithm and weighted so that the maximum number of people can be satisfied with their search?" In the following text, all mentions of "diversification" are replaced with more meaningful words.
When users perform a job search, are they seeing what they want to see? Are we showing what's most important to them?
Details
who: me
what: large survey to assess perceived quality of search results and find ways and levers to improve metadata on our end and the overall user experience
when: summer 2021
why: at the time, Monster had a unique opportunity to re-configure algorithms providing search result matching
Monster has an opportunity to revamp the way Monster weights search results for the user. This study is to provide some data to inform our strategy for weighting and unknown factors moving forward.
*Jobs.com and Monster.com use the same search algorithm. Jobs.com does not have brand awareness and is thus perceived as a better platform to test on as it does not evoke nostalgia (good or bad) the way Monster does.