Indeed job marketplace critique: choose a user segment and design an upgrade

How would you improve Indeed, the job marketplace where people search and apply for jobs and employers post openings and look for candidates? ```hint Two sides, one change Indeed serves job seekers and employers at the same time. Pick one side and one moment in its journey that goes wrong, then check what your fix asks of, or does to, the other side. ``` ### Clarifying Questions - Should the improvement focus on job seekers, on employers who post jobs, or on the match between them? - Is success measured in hires, in job seeker engagement, or in employer spending on promoted listings, and which one wins when they conflict? - Is a particular kind of job in scope, such as hourly roles applied for from a phone, or salaried professional roles? - Does the scope include what happens after someone applies, when many employers move candidates into their own hiring systems? ### What a Strong Answer Covers - A goal for Indeed stated in marketplace terms before any feature is proposed. - A chosen segment and the specific point where its job search or hiring journey breaks down. - Several solution ideas, prioritized by impact and effort, with each one's effect on the other side of the marketplace checked. - A success metric tied to real matches rather than activity, with guardrails on employer value and job seeker trust. - Risks such as gaming, fairness and dependence on employer behavior, and how the design handles them. ### Follow-up Questions - Your change only works if employers act on it, and most of them ignore new tools. How do you get them to take part? - After launch, applications per job fall while job seeker satisfaction rises. Is that a win, and how do you explain it to the team that sells promoted listings? - How would you test the idea in one market before rolling it out everywhere?