Searching LinkedIn with Google and Yahoo for Free

LinkedIn_Why_Join_LinkedIn2 from www.linkedin.comWhen it comes to searching LinkedIn using Internet search engines such as Google or Yahoo, there are many different ways to construct your search string (“X-Ray” or otherwise) and get results.

Ultimately, the goal of any good sourcer or recruiter is to find all of the best available potential candidates that a particular source has to offer.

A short while ago, Gary Cozin sent me a link to an article recommending to “forget complex Boolean strings” when searching LinkedIn using Internet search engines.

I read the article and appreciated the advice to go with the easier, simpler, more elegant search solutions, as well as the suggestion to try “Public profile powered by.” I had never thought of taking that approach – but more on that later.

First, a Little X-Ray History

If you do some research online, you’ll find that the LinkedIn X-Ray search strings that experts in the industry were recommending for years looked something like this: intitle:linkedin “current * test manager” -intitle:answers -intitle:updated -intitle:blog -intitle:directory -inurl:jobs -intitle:profile -inurl:jobid

That string has 8 exclusions – effective, but far from simple and elegant.

A while ago, I came up with and recommended a simpler, more elegant approach to the LinkedIn X-Ray search that focused on inclusion rather than a long list of exclusions by specifically targeting profiles using (inurl:in OR inurl:pub), which allowed me to get away with only using 1 exclusion: -intitle:directory.

This approach yielded a simple, short and effective “core” X-Ray syntax of: (inurl:in OR inurl:pub) -intitle:directory

Short and sexy, right?

And Then….

Sometime in April, many people (including myself) noticed that when running a “standard” LinkedIn X-Ray string with Google, that rather than returning the familiar results of individual LinkedIn profiles, results would come back organized by first or last name. Additionally, many noticed that jobs would come up at the top of the results.


I checked into the matter and suggested to add a couple of exclusions, in the form of -inurl:dir -inurl:jobs to get back to the desired results of individual LinkedIn profiles.

That worked, but my simple, short and effective “core” X-Ray syntax of (inurl:in OR inurl:pub) -intitle:directory got a little longer and uglier with the addition of -inurl:dir -inurl:jobs. I wasn’t particularly happy about that, but it seemed the only way to get rid of the new garbage, non-individual profile, results.

However, it’s still shorter and more elegant than the X-Rays of yore with massive multiple exclusions.

A New Approach

Going back to the idea of using “Public profile powered by” when using an Internet search engine to look for public LinkedIn profiles – I was intrigued by the concept of dropping the X-Ray string altogether and targeting a phrase that is found on every public LinkedIn profile.

It simply never occurred to me to try it, and I sincerely appreciate the novel approach.

Gary Cozin asked me what I thought of the idea. My first impression was that I found it interesting and I respected the mini-breakthrough in thought that produced it, but I told Gary that I needed to do some testing to be able to tell if it is as effective as other methods of searching for LinkedIn profiles on the web.

So I Performed Some Tests

First – remember that when doing any comparison testing of Internet searches , you have to configure them so that they return a manageable number of results – ideally a few hundred or less. Anything higher than that, and you can get into “estimate” territory.

Here is a simple comparison of the “Public profile powered by” vs. a “standard” X-Ray search on Google.

First up – the “Public profile powered by:”

Microsoft “Public profile powered by” “greater atlanta area” “software engineer” java

That yields 7 results. You have to click on “repeat the search with the omitted results included” to get to 103 results. If you click through to page 10 of the results, for some reason there are only really 100. But you get the point.

Next we have a “standard” X-Ray search with the same criteria: (inurl:in OR inurl:pub) -intitle:directory -inurl:dir -inurl:jobs “greater atlanta area” Microsoft “software engineer” java

That yields 287 results. But not really (thanks Google!). If you click through the results pages, you’ll be stopped on page 24 for a total of 232 results.

In that one search comparison, there is a difference of over 100 results, and I didn’t see any duplicates or bad results from my sampling with the “standard” X-Ray.

As a side note, searching for the word “Microsoft” using Google to search LinkedIn will get you many results with hits of common Microsoft software (e.g., Office), as well as the abbreviation “MS,” which even gets hits of Master’s degrees (I found at least 1 instance of this). If you want to force Google to only return the word “Microsoft,” you have to use quotes or the plus (+) sign.

So What Causes the Difference in Results?

That’s a great question. The phrase “Public profile powered by” does seem to be on every public LinkedIn profile, so why would searching for it find fewer results, let alone produce any difference?

Honestly, I am not really sure. Irina Shamaeva has some ideas as to what could cause the difference in search results.

Maybe some people at Google could shed some light on the matter? <not holding my breath>

The Bottom Line

Regardless of why Google isn’t finding all of the available public LinkedIn profiles by searching for “Public profile powered by,” the bottom line is that the “standard” (inelegant and longer) X-Ray string finds more.

Even if the results gap wasn’t as dramatically large as I found in that one test scenario (I did find some larger and smaller results variations), the fact that the results are different AT ALL is what makes me concerned. I don’t like to miss any results.

To make sure you don’t miss any available search results, I strongly encourage you to do your own testing of the various ways to search LinkedIn using an Internet search engine using relevant search terms for whatever you typically look for.

While I love the simplicity and appreciate the approach of searching for public LinkedIn profiles by not having to use the lengthy (inurl:in OR inurl:pub) -intitle:directory -inurl:dir -inurl:jobs, I would never abandon the uglier, longer string at the expense of missing any available search results (not even 1!).

Some More Google Fun

Taking the approach of targeting a phrase common to every public LinkedIn profile a step further, I also experimented with searching for the phrases “Create a public profile” and “professionals already on LinkedIn.”


Here’s a comparison:

Microsoft “Public profile powered by” “greater atlanta area” “software engineer” java

Microsoft “Create a public profile” “greater atlanta area” “software engineer” java

Microsoft “professionals already on LinkedIn” “greater atlanta area” “software engineer” java

Approximately 103, 124, and 150 results respectively.

Did that get your attention?

Why are they different at all, when all three phrases appear on all public LinkedIn profiles? I don’t have the answer.

If Google allows you to click on a cached result without apologizing for thinking you’re not human (am I bitter?), you can clearly see Google indexes the other phrases:


So What about Yahoo and Bing?

Everyone has their search engine preferences, and my first choice has always been Google. However, with the recent changes in LinkedIn X-Ray search results as well as the issue of Google thinking everyone has suddenly become a malicious bot sending automated queries to their servers, I’m looking more at Yahoo and Bing.

Interestingly though, as Irina reminded me recently, Yahoo is giving up their search technology and in the near future will be using Microsoft’s. So technically – Yahoo search may not yield any different results than Bing in the future. Enjoy the results while you can. :-)

Anyhoo…Yahoo does currently seem to do a much better job of searching public LinkedIn profiles with the phrase of “Public profile powered by:”

Microsoft “Public profile powered by” “greater atlanta area” “software engineer” java

416 results! But don’t get too excited – if you click through to the end/last page (to keep Yahoo honest), you end up with 208.

Which is less than the 232 we found using a “standard” X-Ray string on Google.

Interestingly, Yahoo also does a better job of getting consistent results when using other phrases such as “professionals already on LinkedIn” (210 results, if you were curious).

What about Bing? Bing apparently doesn’t like searches like Microsoft “Public profile powered by” “greater atlanta area” “software engineer” java.

Final Thoughts

There is always more than one way to run a search, and there is no single “right way” to find people. Use multiple approaches, and always test them to understand and appreciate differences.

When searching any source, your goal as a sourcer or recruiter is to find all of the best candidates the source has to offer. Finding some people isn’t enough.

Regarding search string length when X-Ray searching LinkedIn – if you’re worried about the 32 word search limit that Google imposes, I’d argue you’re not taking into account that a large percentage of people with LinkedIn profiles don’t even flesh them out with (m)any keywords.

Always appreciate, understand and respect how the non-sourcer / recruiter / HR professional uses LinkedIn…most don’t use it as a full-blown resume.

So if you’re loading up your Google/LinkedIn strings with anywhere close to 32 words (e.g., (inurl:in OR inurl:pub) -intitle:directory -inurl:dir -inurl:jobs “greater atlanta area” “software engineer” java unix oracle linux application design develop C++ MySql J2EE Lead Senior SQL data javascript hibernate blah blah blah…), you are actually making it impossible to find all of the qualified candidates on LinkedIn.

Contemplate this on the tree of woe.


  • That’s a super explanation! Many thanks and am looking forward to putting it into action!

  • Ollezaza

    Another great write-up, thank you.

    As a side topic, could you or a colleague write something about why sourcers keep focusing on LinkedIn? If you all are really sincere about “finding all of the best candidates,” then you are doing a great injustice to us jobseekers by creating a sourcing bottleneck there.

    What I mean is this:

    I love LinkedIn. I really do! (It’s hasn’t gotten me a job yet, and I’m coming to realize it’s not really good at that anyway.)

    I’ve learned a tremendous amount, especially *how* recruiters do sourcing–info that would have been hard to find elsewhere.

    I have super-sized my public and internal profiles –based on recommendations and advice in LI and recruiters– so that they both should be easily taggable for searches. Hopefully they’re interesting to read too.


    LI is not Facebook– supposedly with 400 million *profiles* (live or dead).

    Hell it’s not even Monster or CareerBuilder (the latter I hate with a passion); yet they obviously have way more resumes locked up, each individually more than LI.

    As you noted, most LI profiles are a desert. It’ll literally take years to gain enough momentum for people to start using LI more actively. I would argue that the critical mass has already occurred: if people haven’t gotten it by now–during this Great Recession–how useful a resource LI is, they never will.

    LI itself has a lot of problems from the perspectives of both jobseeker and sourcer. To this day, I’m amazed about how non-transparent and non-userfriendly access to posted jobs are.

    So we need to read about how sourcers are using other sources. As a jobseeker, I need to know how to get you to look at my credentials. LI is helping but it’s far far from a killer app.

    P.S. We already know the first reason why Monster/CB are anathema to the sourcer: they charge a fee for seeing their resumes. But note it in your future write-up anyway.

  • D

    Hi, thanks for this tip, it’s great!

    But I have a question (sorry newbie to LinkedIn here), once I find someone using this method, what is the best way to contact them?

    Do I add them as a contact, or pay for an upgrade to InMails?

    What method do you guys use?

  • Pingback: Bing Beats Google for the Best Way to X-Ray Search LinkedIn()

  • Russ Houghton

    Hey B3, great discussion on technique, just found it while doing a search myself. I think we can all implement some quick techniques that will save us significant time, and help us steer away from the very time consuming, time trapping interfaces on most social networks. Thanks for the post.

  • Okay article. I just
    became aware of your blog and desired to say I have really enjoyed reading your
    opinions. Any way I’ll be subscribing in your feed and Lets hope you post again

  • Ann Dominguez

    Linkedin is commonly a medium of campaigning sites now. It is now trending in all times.  Cleaning Services Perth

  • Ann Dominguez

    Thanks to goodness that this is for free. Well, this should be free to acquire more and more subscribers. bali luxury accommodation

  • Ann Dominguez

    Everything you have in the internet is free. Especially this Linkedn thing. dive with whale sharks

  • Ann Dominguez

    The use of Google and Yahoo in searching for Linkedin profiles is an efficient way to keep your profile on the move. Use Linkedin. Bali Villas

  • Pingback: Top 5 Places To Advertise A Job And Find The Perfect Employee |()

  • Maria Kumar @ Aminjikaai

    Get their email and contact them thru..

  • Julli Mark

    Thanks for sharing this tips. This is very informative.

  • williamBoyce123

    Thanks for sharing a post. This is very informative post. This blog is also useful for users visit here:

  • danial

    Many thanks for Sharing a informative explanation! This is very useful for me. You can also visit here, to more about Yahoo:

  • Julli Mark

    Thanks for sharing a informative post. This is very useful for me.

  • Pingback: How to source software developers from LinkedIn - Devskiller - measure programming skills of developers()

  • frank mitchell

    Best content by best author always create the best blog..