mack
msg:30905 | 3:36 pm on Dec 19, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Sharp contrast to their UK opperations where they laid off a large proportion of their sales staff. cpc is a lot less in the UK though, so I guess the margins didn't justify the outlaw. Mack.
|
natural number
msg:30906 | 10:56 pm on Dec 19, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Jeeves has that many workers? I think they should decrease their staff by 20%. I might search on Jeeves once a year. I bet they are going to hand edit their index again or hand edit it more.
|
martinibuster
msg:30907 | 3:40 am on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0) |
A 20% increase is actually a downward trend from their 30% year to year staff growth, according to this quote last month [sfgate.com] by AJ's Glen Sunnergren, senior vice president of Human Resources: | "We are clearly in a hiring mode," said Sunnergren, pointing out that the company has enjoyed a 30 percent year-to-year increase in the size of its staff for several years. |
|
Are they spinning a decrease in hiring? I think a fact checker to keep all their statements consistent is one of the people they should be looking to hire.
;) Y
|
ByronM
msg:30908 | 3:28 am on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
A decrease in hirring doesn't show anything. For all we know it could be an increase in efficiency and better production. 20% growth for a company with only a few percentage points of the market isn't anything to shy off about. I just wish they used more of there own results rather than google. Google NEEDS competition.
|
|
