New Army recruitment campaign

Ummm ..... conscription for all men aged 17-21 at the time so they couldn't avoid it could have had something to do with it.

John G there was no conscription in the mid 1960s
 
John G there was no conscription in the mid 1960s
see
My point, possibly unclear, was as in your last line - many conscripts had and did sign on to become regulars, and many who signed on had recently left as conscripts and were unemployed. That can't be compared with the situation now, and the idea that there's a rush of 'Hard Cases' to join whenever conflicts crop up simply doesn't hold up when you check the numbers.
 
I think the CO of the AFC has gotten a little excited a little early and is confusing applications with people actually joining?

If/when we reach the 60% figure for the year touted by Gen Urch we will still be way short of a 5 year high :)

FC04B158-7691-4E65-A6C4-F5645431BD02.jpeg
 
I think the CO of the AFC has gotten a little excited a little early and is confusing applications with people actually joining?

If/when we reach the 60% figure for the year touted by Gen Urch we will still be way short of a 5 year high :)

View attachment 377172
Maybe he's a little more worried about the rest of his career than you and he's hoping kissing the right arrse may get him a little further.

It's all a bit sad.
 
I think the importance of prior service networks within the City is being overstated in this thread. If we can argue that this is tangenitally related to retention and life after service, sort of. @bobthebuilder described it most accurately, the non advertised job market. You hear about a role through a connection and then engage in the process. What happens less is that then means getting the job is a fait accompli. In fact quite the opposite. Looking at many big firms, your referee is deliberatly cut out of process and in some cases quite agressively. I've been the 'outside' interviewer with absolutely no prior knowledge of the target team or candidate (and I've binned candidates that were no good)

I've spent the best part of twenty years in the City and as I've said before I've interviewed literally thousands of candidates over the years. I also got my current job through a network connection (met my current boss at conference two years before coming to work for him). The most powerful and recurring network effect I've seen is making a direct call to someone you know from a previous job where you've worked together. That tends to extend to relevant previous work experience. The counterpoint to this is even the most senior hiring managers have a process to follow and rarely are they the sole decision maker.

Does the old boys network exist? Sure. Is it nearly as important as people outside it seem to think it is? No it isn't. The senior decision makers have woken up to the idea that the right person and the right mix of team is far more important and your twenty year old experiences of them are absolutely no guarantee. You went to school with them? That's nice. Are they any good? Let's get some others to work that out.

Yeah, this is massive thread drift.
I certainly wasn’t suggesting that people get roles because of their regimental tie any more. But the introduction gets people through the first sift from where they have to compete on merit in whatever selection process the company uses.

It is, however, undeniable that there are hotspots of ex officer employment, not just in the City, but in many other other industries. One that immediately comes to mind is ex-Sappers in Network Rail. I could name at least a dozen, Maj-Col in the rail industry. They didn’t get though the door because they were proven rail sectir engineers or project managers.....

On the whole, it’s a good thing. The former service network should be a place where those leaving can go for advice, help in opening doors etc etc. Good employment prospects for those leaving are vital if recruiting is to be strong.

Where I don’t think it’s right is when it becomes tribal.
 
As was explained at post #2,570 the last time this article was posted, it's a con. Nothing to do with Brexit or the RN or RAF, just a con:

Having read the link I'm also more dubious than ever about some of the claims made and how they're deliberately distorting the stats to paint a very different picture to reality, rather like changing the point where 'trained soldiers' and 'applications' are counted (from completion of Ph2 or 3, as the rest of the Armed Forces do, to completion of Ph1 for the former, and from a signed full application, as the rest of the Armed Forces and most organisations do, to the 'expression of interest' point for the latter) .

It's not remotely my field so when I read the claim that "the army jobs website received 815,000 unique hits between January 2 and 31, almost double the 427,000 views it got in January 2018" I was curious about the stat as well as the change from "unique hits" to "views", and if it was just me being pedantic.

Evidently not. A 'unique hit' is totally different to a 'view' and if some pages have three photos, for example, that one 'view' will count as four 'unique hits' - one for the page and three for the photos.

It's nothing more than another cheap con trick:

"While a hit is a meaningful measure of how much traffic a server handles, it can be a misleading indicator of how many pages are being viewed. Instead, advertising agencies and their clients look at the number of pages delivered and ad impressions or views."
I’m inclined to think it’s more slack use of terminology. The ratio between unique hits and views is ~2:1. Most home pages have around 15 sections, each of which is an individual hit. Sure, by no means all sections will get hit, but, on 400k page views, you’d expect a lot more than 800k hits. Probably in the order of 4M or more. So the numbers don’t make sense.

The other piece of slack terminology is the use of the word “unique” for hits. Websites don’t track unique hits. They track unique visits. A visit is any discreet land on a page; you don’t know whether it’s a first time or multiple visit. A unique visit is the first time someone visits your site with their cookies enabled. It doesn’t measure all first time visits; someone landing for the first time with their cookies disabled will show up as a visit, not a unique visit. With me so far?

On a well performing site, a Visit usually generates 2-3 Page Views and each Page View generates 15 hits. So the ratio of visits:views:hits would be 1:3:45. Unique Visits would be lower than Visits; there will be an expected ratio for the target audience somewhere but I’d expect the majority of the audience to have cookies enabled.

TBH I’ve no idea what those stats you quote actually mean. It is either, as you say, a cheap con trick or it’s massive incompetence. Or both.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top