Most sourcing tools promise to do the work for you. This one doesn't. It takes the evaluation you already perform in your head on every profile, makes you say it out loud once at the start of a search, and then applies it the same way to every candidate you look at. What changes isn't the quality of your judgment. It's the consistency, and how much of it survives to the end of the week.
Be honest about a long sourcing session. The first ten profiles get your full attention. The fiftieth gets a glance at the current title and a gut call. That drift is the real problem, and it's the one worth fixing.
The other half of the problem is the gray zone. Most profiles are not an obvious yes or no, and LinkedIn rarely spells everything out. TalSeek reads company background, adjacent experience, and the pattern across a career to surface what isn't stated in black and white, so borderline candidates get a sharper call instead of a coin flip.
Setup is the only part that takes real thought, and you do it a single time when the search opens. Everything after that happens while you source.
Paste in the intake notes or the job description and TalSeek drafts the criteria for you: three or four genuine must-haves, in plain language. You edit them, because the draft is a starting point and you know things the document doesn't say. You also describe what a relevant company looks like for this search: the industry, the stage, the size, the business model, whatever actually matters here.
Open profiles the same way you always have. TalSeek sits in the browser side panel rather than a popup, so it stays open as you move from candidate to candidate. Nothing about your search technique changes, and there's no separate app to keep in sync.
One click returns an overall call of STRONG, POSSIBLE, or PASS. Then, more usefully, each of your criteria marked CONFIRMED, UNCLEAR, or UNLIKELY with the evidence from the profile attached. The overall grade is the part you'll glance at. The criterion-by-criterion breakdown is the part you'll actually use.
When a criterion comes back UNCLEAR, you get a specific screening question written for that candidate. That question is the difference between "seems interesting, let's talk" and walking into the call already knowing the one thing you need to resolve.
The same click classifies every employer in the work history against your company definition and returns MATCH, UNSURE, or NO MATCH, most recent first, along with the specific data points you asked for. Ten years of experience at companies that all miss your definition is a different candidate from ten years at companies that all hit it, and that pattern is invisible from job titles alone.
One click copies the whole analysis as clean text: verdicts, evidence, screening questions, employer classifications, all ready to drop into your ATS, your notes, or a submittal. Everything is also saved automatically, so you can star the strong ones, filter by search or verdict, and export what passed.
This is the quiet win. The reasoning behind a pass is normally the first thing thrown away, and it's the thing you desperately want six weeks later when the hiring manager asks why you skipped someone.
The criteria and the company definition are yours, written in your language. Nothing about the tool assumes a particular function, seniority, or industry. Three real-shaped examples:
Consumer or developer infrastructure companies operating at real scale, not agencies or consultancies. Report the industry and whether the company is a startup, mid-size, or enterprise.
Manufacturing or distribution businesses at enterprise scale, not startups. Report the industry and whether the company is public or private.
Healthcare provider organizations, not payers, device makers, or health tech vendors. Report the care setting and whether the organization is for-profit or non-profit.
A tool that claims to do everything in recruiting should worry you. This one covers the search phase and stops there.
No outreach, no scheduling, no automated conversations with candidates. It reads what is already on a public profile and helps you decide who is worth your time. Every human interaction remains yours.
There is no leaderboard and no composite score. Each candidate is evaluated against your written criteria on their own terms. Comparing finalists is a judgment call that depends on context the tool doesn't have.
Company classification comes from the model's existing knowledge, not a live lookup. That's why uncertainty is reported as uncertainty. Anything marked UNSURE is a prompt for you to check, not an answer.
A verdict is an opinion with its reasoning shown, which means you can disagree with it and see exactly where it went wrong. Override it whenever you like. That's the intended use, not a workaround.
Spend your time deciding, not digging. Drop your email and we'll send you the download link.
No spam. Just the download link and occasional updates.