5 ms·

> They have a form on gov.uk which submits to the job search application from direct.gov (the organisation that was bad enough to convince government to give go

by forloop 12y ago

> They have a form on gov.uk which submits to the job search application from direct.gov (the organisation that was bad enough to convince government to give gov.uk a go in the first place). That validates my concern about quality.

vertex-four 12y ago
Would you prefer that gov.uk didn't give you any way to access Universal Jobmatch at all? It's a legacy system that people still need to access. I assume the Job Centre have contracts that they need to fulfil that would prevent gov.uk from replacing it.
- forloop 12y ago
  The marginal benefit—above and beyond other options—of Universal Jobmatch is so low (and probably negative) that it doesn't matter either way. Being mandated to use a suboptimal tool results in a net loss. Taking that into consideration, my answer is 'yes! Please'.
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    You would be mandated to use it whether or not gov.uk linked to it. gov.uk isn't in control of that - the DWP is. Maybe, once the DWP's contract with Monster expires in a few years, gov.uk will be able to make a case that they should be running it.
    - forloop 12y ago
      So your question relates to whether it makes a difference to me if the job search app is available via gov.uk? No it doesn't. From the outside it's all bullshit branding. As a user I want to be able to find jobs, refine searches, use categories, and other activities based around getting-the-job-done. Edit: URLs for unique resources works fine. The gov.uk as a namespace doesn't help usability. I'm happy to be corrected with evidence.
      - vertex-four 12y ago
        > No it doesn't. From the outside it's all bullshit branding. As a user I want to be able to find jobs, refine searches, use categories, and other activities based around getting-the-job-done. It's not gov.uk's fault that you have a shitty experience doing that. The Government Digital Service (most well-known as "gov.uk") have never been involved in the Universal Jobmatch site that was contracted out by the DWP to Monster without consulting the GDS. I have no idea why you're attacking gov.uk for it - I repeat, they had literally nothing to do with it. > URLs for unique resources works fine. The gov.uk as a namespace doesn't help usability. I'm happy to be corrected with evidence. gov.uk is a platform developed by the GDS, not simply a namespace. It covers everything on the "gov.uk" main website, and a selection of subdomains, but not all (anything that existed while DirectGov was still a thing is not maintained by the GDS, essentially). The majority of gov.uk revolves around a CMS that can manage many types of content. It provides a consistent interface for the people who create the content - people from every single Government department - to publish it, and a consistent backend that allows the developers to build new services that utilise the existing infrastructure. Before, we had a pile of independent websites built and maintained by each Government department with no integrated search or organisation, a lot of duplicated technical effort as everyone had to maintain their own CMS, and an extremely poor user experience.
        forloop 12y ago
        > I have no idea why you're attacking gov.uk for it - I repeat, they had literally nothing to do with it. I'm answering your questions as frankly as I can. The questions involve gov.uk, and so the answers involve gov.uk. > gov.uk is a platform developed by the GDS, not simply a namespace. From the outside it's difficult to make the distinction. I'm talking from the perspective of a user. > Before, we had a pile of independent websites built and maintained by each Government department with no integrated search or organisation, a lot of duplicated technical effort as everyone had to maintain their own CMS, and an extremely poor user experience. For the scope of gov.uk, I can appreciate how that's beneficial. The dynamic I've seen is there's a bad solution to something which isn't even a problem—as there are already better job sites around. If my premise is correct, then even if gov.uk solved the UX problem for Universal Jobmatch, it's still solving a problem which doesn't really need to be solved (a clone of a job website isn't very valuable). And that government fixes problems which it creates, and then pats itself on the back. What I've said goes outside of the specific points I've been making, but that's how I see the context. I'm not even anti-government, necessarily. I'm still making my mind up. Maybe the need for inequality is more important than efficiency and maximum wealth? Some of the things governments do are egregious; but so are some of the things individuals do. Knowing the answer wouldn't be of much benefit, anyway: the government isn't going anywhere any time soon, regardless!
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

by forloop 12y ago

vertex-four 12y ago

Would you prefer that gov.uk didn't give you any way to access Universal Jobmatch at all? It's a legacy system that people still need to access. I assume the Job Centre have contracts that they need to fulfil that would prevent gov.uk from replacing it.

forloop 12y ago
The marginal benefit—above and beyond other options—of Universal Jobmatch is so low (and probably negative) that it doesn't matter either way. Being mandated to use a suboptimal tool results in a net loss. Taking that into consideration, my answer is 'yes! Please'.
- vertex-four 12y ago
  You would be mandated to use it whether or not gov.uk linked to it. gov.uk isn't in control of that - the DWP is. Maybe, once the DWP's contract with Monster expires in a few years, gov.uk will be able to make a case that they should be running it.
  - forloop 12y ago
    So your question relates to whether it makes a difference to me if the job search app is available via gov.uk? No it doesn't. From the outside it's all bullshit branding. As a user I want to be able to find jobs, refine searches, use categories, and other activities based around getting-the-job-done. Edit: URLs for unique resources works fine. The gov.uk as a namespace doesn't help usability. I'm happy to be corrected with evidence.
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      > No it doesn't. From the outside it's all bullshit branding. As a user I want to be able to find jobs, refine searches, use categories, and other activities based around getting-the-job-done. It's not gov.uk's fault that you have a shitty experience doing that. The Government Digital Service (most well-known as "gov.uk") have never been involved in the Universal Jobmatch site that was contracted out by the DWP to Monster without consulting the GDS. I have no idea why you're attacking gov.uk for it - I repeat, they had literally nothing to do with it. > URLs for unique resources works fine. The gov.uk as a namespace doesn't help usability. I'm happy to be corrected with evidence. gov.uk is a platform developed by the GDS, not simply a namespace. It covers everything on the "gov.uk" main website, and a selection of subdomains, but not all (anything that existed while DirectGov was still a thing is not maintained by the GDS, essentially). The majority of gov.uk revolves around a CMS that can manage many types of content. It provides a consistent interface for the people who create the content - people from every single Government department - to publish it, and a consistent backend that allows the developers to build new services that utilise the existing infrastructure. Before, we had a pile of independent websites built and maintained by each Government department with no integrated search or organisation, a lot of duplicated technical effort as everyone had to maintain their own CMS, and an extremely poor user experience.
      - forloop 12y ago
        > I have no idea why you're attacking gov.uk for it - I repeat, they had literally nothing to do with it. I'm answering your questions as frankly as I can. The questions involve gov.uk, and so the answers involve gov.uk. > gov.uk is a platform developed by the GDS, not simply a namespace. From the outside it's difficult to make the distinction. I'm talking from the perspective of a user. > Before, we had a pile of independent websites built and maintained by each Government department with no integrated search or organisation, a lot of duplicated technical effort as everyone had to maintain their own CMS, and an extremely poor user experience. For the scope of gov.uk, I can appreciate how that's beneficial. The dynamic I've seen is there's a bad solution to something which isn't even a problem—as there are already better job sites around. If my premise is correct, then even if gov.uk solved the UX problem for Universal Jobmatch, it's still solving a problem which doesn't really need to be solved (a clone of a job website isn't very valuable). And that government fixes problems which it creates, and then pats itself on the back. What I've said goes outside of the specific points I've been making, but that's how I see the context. I'm not even anti-government, necessarily. I'm still making my mind up. Maybe the need for inequality is more important than efficiency and maximum wealth? Some of the things governments do are egregious; but so are some of the things individuals do. Knowing the answer wouldn't be of much benefit, anyway: the government isn't going anywhere any time soon, regardless!
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]