(This is a series of evaluations of St Louis Technical Staffing Websites. Editorial policy is here. Comments are the responsbility of their owners, but will be edited or deleted if they use profanity or are anonymous. We're attempting to provide a spot for open, honest dialog and suggest improvements to the local sites).
Today's Website will be Preferred Resources.
1) Design and Configuration: The website initally struck me as heavily text-based, an explanatory version of a website heavy on words and offering no chance for interaction. That initial impression is a but unfair, as the site is exportable to a PDF, which serves as a brochure for clients. I have to give that props, even if it does make the site like like an online brochure.
The layout is simple - the front page far too simple. I wouldn't encourage a Flash piece, but the front landing page has always struck me as foolish. The links allow good navigation of the page - that's a plus. Specific information is also provided on health plans and dental, which is a positive step that allows for comparison. That's important for candidates, and many companies just list that health insurance is available, without mentioning that it's high-deductible.
2) Negatives: The website is a placeholder, and does little to inspire confidence. Testimonials from pseudononymous candidates don't mean anything. Too many people know these are made up. There's also no sense of personality. The biggest negative is this is a "blah" site.
3) Resume Submittal: The resume submittal form had some thought go into, but it lacks a compelling reason to use. What will happen when a candidate submits their resume? Can they expect a call? Are they sure it went through? Why should they submit a resume when they don't know anything about the company?
4) Jobs: Job orders are generic - requiring no upkeep, but not giving any real information.
5) Client Information: The company lists their clients, which isn't a bad tactic to let candidates know who they work with. Do they have permission to use the names of these companies on their website? I'll give 10:1 odds the answer is no.
6) Personal Touch: They list the direct names of people to contact on the Contact Us page. That's a big positive. At least candidates have a name, a real person to connect to. The copywriting is also more authentic than on many sites - it's not perfect grammar or corporate speak, which is to say it seems like a regular person telling candidates and clients why they should work together. The question is whether it was intentional, or just bad copywriting. They often sound the same.
7) Other services: No information is provided to help a candidate. No user groups, no news, no website links - just another place to send a resume if you're not particular about who you send it to.
Grade: D+
The site looks like generic website put in place because everyone is supposed to have a website. Several small touches help liven that impression, namely the health insurance and the contact info. The lack of up-to-date job info is a bad sign, and one is left wondering if the website actually drives any traffic to the company.