Job titles are a broken proxy
The same work carries a dozen different titles across companies and countries. Searching for "Data Engineer" quietly skips the analytics engineer who has already built exactly the pipeline you need.
Boolean strings, title filters, and keyword matching were built for databases — not for hiring. The next generation of talent search reads intent: describe the person the role needs, in a sentence, and get people back instead of rows.
No Boolean syntax, no filter stacking — just the role in plain language.
Try bilingual finance lead, closed books at a startup, or fintech
This is a prototype with a small sample set. Try fewer words, or describe the capability instead of the job title.
Prototype · sample data · cards are not clickable
Search bar replacing filters, tags, and Boolean operators
Average time from first search to a ready-to-interview shortlist
Countries of pre-vetted talent searchable in one place
The same work carries a dozen different titles across companies and countries. Searching for "Data Engineer" quietly skips the analytics engineer who has already built exactly the pipeline you need.
You have to guess every synonym, spelling, and nested parenthesis before the system will help. Recall ends up depending on how clever the string was — not on how good the candidates are.
A series on the shift from keywords to intent — what changes for recruiters, for the tools they use, and for the people who were invisible to the old interface.
The center of gravity in recruiting is moving from the database of records to the query box in front of it — and that changes which system recruiters actually live in.
What separates matching strings from understanding what a role genuinely requires — and why the difference shows up as recall, not as a nicer UI.
Exact-match keywords, ten results a page, and a lot of guessing. A look at why talent search stalled while the rest of search moved on.
What happens when "a bilingual controller who has closed books at an early-stage startup" becomes a valid query instead of a translation exercise.
Titles describe where someone has worked. Capabilities describe what they can do. Only one of the two predicts performance in your role.
Recruiters describe roles in sentences and trade-offs, then convert them into filters. That conversion step is where strong candidates quietly disappear.
Boolean was a workaround for systems that could not understand meaning. Those systems are being replaced — and the syntax goes with them.
Not a job board, not an ATS, not a résumé database. What a purpose-built people search engine is, and what it makes possible.
You already know who you are looking for. People search removes the step where you have to prove it in query syntax.
Write it the way you would say it to a colleague — the work, the context, the constraints. No operators, no filter stack, no list of title synonyms.
The query is mapped to capabilities, adjacent titles, tools, and industry context — so the analytics engineer who never used your keyword still surfaces.
Every candidate comes back with the evidence behind the match, so you can refine in plain language instead of rebuilding the search from scratch.
Ask for what the role needs in a sentence. The syntax is English, and the results move as you refine it.
Candidates are indexed by demonstrated skills and context, not by whatever title their last employer happened to use.
Each result shows why it matched, so a shortlist is something you can question rather than a black box.
Search across pre-screened professionals in 50+ countries, with the hiring and compliance path already mapped.
"Good recruiters already know who they're looking for. Search should stop making them prove it in Boolean."
Try People SearchCommon questions about people search, intent-based ranking, and how it compares with Boolean sourcing.
It is a search layer built specifically for finding professionals. Instead of matching keywords against stored documents, it interprets what a role requires and ranks people by demonstrated capability.
Boolean returns what your string literally asked for. Intent search returns what your role actually needs — including strong candidates whose profiles never used your exact wording.
No. Describing the role in ordinary sentences is the interface. The more context you give — seniority, tools, industry, market — the sharper the results.
Yes. Filters are still useful for hard constraints like location or availability. The change is that they narrow a search rather than being the only way to start one.
Usually the opposite. Keyword search silently drops qualified people who describe their work differently. Understanding intent widens the pool while keeping the ranking relevant.
Run a search in plain language, or talk to a hiring expert about the roles you are trying to fill.