A candidate can be in your database and still be missing from your search

A new role lands and you remember someone who fits, a person you placed or nearly placed a couple of years ago. You search your database for the job title and they don't come up.

They're still in there. They were filed under a different title, or their CV describes the work in other words, or the notes that made them memorable sit in an email thread instead of a field your search reads. The database has the person. Your search can't find them.

I'd check that before paying for another data source or starting the search from zero. There are two checks, and they tend to get blurred together: can you find the people you already know, and is what you know about them still true?

I'm building software for this problem at OptiTalent, but you don't need any of it to run these checks.

Check one: does your search return the people you'd expect?#

Pick a few records you already know are relevant to the role: people you've spoken to, shortlisted or placed for similar work. Use only data you're allowed to use, and keep personal details private.

Then search the way you normally would and note which of them come back.

The rows above are a made-up example to show the format, not real candidates or results.

When someone you expected doesn't come back, write down your best guess at why before you decide the system is broken. The usual causes:

• Different titles for the same work. "Operations lead", "site delivery manager" and "regional coordinator" can describe overlapping jobs.
• Skills described as work instead of keywords. "Rebuilt the weekly operations review" says a lot and contains none of the words you searched.
• Knowledge outside the searchable fields: call notes, emails, a portfolio, or a LinkedIn profile that never made it into the record.

Once you know where the people you'd want are hiding, the next search can start there.

Check two: is what you know still true?#

Finding someone doesn't mean you can recommend them yet, because a CV is a snapshot. As one recruiter put it on LinkedIn, a static profile doesn't necessarily reflect where someone is now.

For each person the first check turns up, keep three things separate:

1. What the evidence says and where it came from, for example "Ran delivery across four sites (CV, 2024)."
2. When it was last confirmed: the date you last spoke, or the date of the source.
3. What you still need to ask: current role, appetite to move, salary expectations, notice period.

Keeping them apart also keeps your conversation with the client honest. You can say what you know, how fresh it is and what you'll confirm before an interview, instead of presenting an old CV as a current fact.

Run both on a live role#

Whenever a role looks like it should have a match in your database, work through it in this order:

1. List the people you'd expect to fit, from memory and your best searches.
2. Search a few different ways (by title, by the work, by skill) and note who goes missing.
3. Record the evidence for each person, with its source and date.
4. Confirm anything out of date, through your normal consent and contact process, before anyone goes on a shortlist.

None of this needs new software. A spreadsheet and twenty minutes on one live role will probably tell you more about your database than a vendor demo, including one of ours whenever we have something to show.

What I'd like to hear#

Where does it break for you: finding the person, or trusting what you have on them once you do? I'm collecting real examples (never candidate details) to make these notes more useful.