Recruiting software is sold to HR and talent teams. The same sites also attract job seekers, and those are not the same search. Miraa separates the two, and treats a recruitment agency as a third plan when that is the business.
Companies we work with
ATS, sourcing, assessment, and HRIS-adjacent products are bought by a talent leader or an HR operations lead. The pages are category, alternatives, implementation, and the systems the product connects to.
Career and resume tools can be a consumer product. If that is the business, the reader is the job seeker and the pages should say so. We do not hide a B2B sale inside seeker content, or the reverse.
Recruitment and staffing agencies need pages for the niche and the locations they actually fill. A page for a city the agency does not serve does not get published.
Job-seeker traffic is not automatically a client. If the agency’s commercial search is the employer, the site should not be built as a board.
A template with the city swapped is how these sites get ignored.
Recruiting sites are tempted by a page for every title and every city. Search engines and answer engines both have an easy time discarding those URLs when the body does not change. We will propose a template only where the facts change with the URL: the role the product or the agency actually fills, the place it actually serves, or the rule that actually applies.
Hiring compliance is the other half of that judgment. EEO language, pay-transparency lines, and claims about AI in screening have to be ones the company’s own reviewer will accept. We do not draft a legal conclusion and ship it as a blog post. When a rule changes, the URLs that state it are revised.
The list is the same ten services. The split between HR buyer, job seeker, and agency is decided before any of them start.
Category and alternatives pages for the ATS, the sourcing tool, or the assessment product, plus the HRIS and job-board integrations that are real.
The questions a talent leader asks before a switch, or the questions a seeker asks of a resume product. They are not written as one blended calendar.
Job listings, filters, and app screens that search engines never see. Indexing a thin listing on purpose is not the goal. Indexing the page that explains the product is.
Titles that tell a seeker and an HR buyer apart. A homepage that tries to rank for both will read as neither.
ATS products rebrand, and agencies merge domains. Redirects have to keep the category and location URLs that were real, and drop the ones that were only a template.
Thousands of near-duplicate role pages. Recovery starts by removing the URLs that say nothing distinct, before any new template is discussed.
A clear statement of who the product is for, so an answer engine does not describe an ATS as a job board. We do not invent a “best ATS” citation.
Writers who can describe a hiring workflow, and who will stop when a sentence needs a compliance reviewer. Pay ranges and EEO lines are not improvised.
References from HR and talent publications the buyer already reads. A block of identical guest posts about “the future of hiring” is not the work.
Agents can propose role or location URLs from a source of truth. They do not get to publish a page the source does not support. A person checks the queue.
HR or talent team, job seeker, recruitment agency, or more than one. Each one that is real gets its own URLs.
Existing programmatic URLs are reviewed. The ones that only swap a city or a title are candidates to remove, not to optimize.
Category, alternatives, and integrations for software. Niche and location for an agency. Compliance lines wait for the reviewer.
When a hiring rule changes, the pages that state it change. We do not leave an old requirement up because it still gets visits.
Whichever one pays. An ATS is an HR sale. A resume product can be a seeker sale. An agency might be either, and the call has to pick. We do not build one site that mumbles both.
Only when each URL has a fact that is true for that URL. A city or title swap with the same paragraph is the failure mode. We would rather publish fewer pages than a template that should not be indexed.
Usually by not competing on their queries. Boards own seeker intent. A large ATS owns its own brand searches. The useful pages are the comparison, the integration, and the job your product actually does. We do not promise to outrank a board for a job title.
EEO, pay transparency, and AI-in-hiring claims are drafted for a reviewer at the company. We do not publish a legal conclusion. When the rule changes, those URLs are revised.
Yes. The pages are the niche and the locations the agency actually serves. They are not a software outline with the word agency dropped in, and they are not a fake footprint of cities.
B2B SaaS is the broader software brief. Technical SEO is where listings and docs fail to index. Content is the reviewed draft. AI companies is the page when the product is the model, not the ATS.
The call separates HR buyers, job seekers, and agencies before any URL plan. Pricing is the published list.