# The Sourceable Profile Standard, Graded Gate to Rank to Response

*Grade each LinkedIn and job-board profile on gate, rank, and response tests, reach the verdict a second grader would, and list the exact fields to fix.*

- Canonical URL: https://www.refolk.ai/candidates/guides/sourceable-profile-gate-rank-response
- Pillar: Positioning and materials
- Format: Standard
- Published: 2026-10-18
- Last reviewed: 2026-10-18
- Reading time: 21 min
- Keywords: why are recruiters not finding my linkedin profile, how to make my profile show up in recruiter searches, linkedin profile checklist for recruiters, make indeed resume searchable to employers, how recruiters source candidates with ai search, is my linkedin profile recruiter ready

## Key takeaways

- In Refolk's index, adding a single SQL skill filter to a US "Data Analyst" title search cuts the pool from 65,307 to 12,914 profiles, so 80.2% of title matches disappear when the skill isn't in the Skills section.
- Grade gate criteria before response criteria, because LinkedIn Spotlights reorder people already inside a search result and do not add anyone to it.
- In a 25-profile sample from Refolk's index, 40% of US profiles matching a "Data Analyst" title search had a different current title, so a title match on an old role is a false pass for current relevance.
- Only two of the four documented Active talent triggers can be controlled by the candidate (a recent profile update and a resume shared with recruiters), so tenure and layoffs are recorded as uncontrollable rather than failed.
- LinkedIn's figure that verified members get 60% more profile views measures views, not search inclusion, so it counts as correlational evidence for a response criterion, not a gate.
- A profile is done only when every gate and rank criterion passes, every controllable response input is set or recorded, every privacy setting has a written decision, and a second grader reaches the same verdict.

This standard gives you a pass or fail verdict on each LinkedIn and job-board profile you own. It tests three things: whether the profile enters a recruiter's result set, whether it sits high enough there to be seen, and whether it gets messaged. It holds whether the searcher is a person running filters or an AI agent reading your profile against a pasted job description. It's for job seekers who are waiting on inbound and want a verdict before another month goes by. You get graded criteria tagged by how strong their evidence is, a procedure two graders can run independently, and the failure modes that make a profile look ready when it isn't.

## What the Sourceable Profile Standard grades

A profile is sourceable when it passes three tiers of tests in order. Gate tests ask whether it enters the result set at all. Rank tests ask where it sits once inside. Response tests ask whether it gets surfaced and answered. A profile is done only when every gate and rank criterion passes, every response input you control is set, every privacy setting has a written decision, and a second grader reaches the same verdict.

Most profile advice skips the first question, which is why "why are recruiters not finding my LinkedIn profile" is such a common search. Tip lists start with headline wording and the Open to Work badge. Both work downstream of entry. One ranking page on recruiter behavior makes the point itself: Spotlights "reshuffle the people already inside a search result. They do not add you to it." So this standard grades the gate first and treats everything after it as conditional.

#### The four layers a profile is graded on

1. **Gate** - Filters and semantic matching decide whether you enter the result set
2. **Rank** - Current-role status and recency affect your order inside the set
3. **Response** - Spotlights, Open to Work, and verification affect who gets surfaced and messaged
4. **Exposure** - Privacy settings decide what each searcher can see and who can reach you

*A profile has to pass each outer layer before the inner ones can do any work for it.*

### Evidence tags

Every criterion below carries one of four tags, so a grader knows how much weight it can bear:

- **Documented**: a LinkedIn, Indeed, or CareerBuilder help or terms page says it.
- **Secondary**: press, reviews, or career sites report it, and I found no primary page.
- **Derived**: computed from counts in Refolk's index of professional profiles.
- **Unevidenced**: it circulates in tip lists with no source. Unevidenced criteria aren't scored at all.

> **Rule:** Gate before response, always
>
> Never grade a response criterion on a profile that hasn't passed every gate criterion. A Spotlight on a profile that never enters the result set scores nothing, no matter how well it's configured.

## Which profile fields does each search mode read?

Recruiter filters read specific structured fields. Keyword search highlights matches in a few named sections. AI agents read the whole profile against a job description. Neither LinkedIn nor the job boards publish which fields the AI modes weight most.

| Search mode | What it reads | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Boolean filters | Job titles, Location, Companies, Skills and Assessments, Schools, Industries, Spoken languages | Documented |
| Keyword search | Highlights on profile card, Summary, Experience header, description, location, and Skills | Documented |
| Hiring Assistant | Job description or recruiter prompt, each requirement marked met, partly met, or not met | Secondary |
| AI-assisted field weighting | Not published | Not established |

What each row means for grading:

- **Filter fields are binary, so grade them that way.** Your title either sits in a title field or it doesn't. A skill either sits in the Skills section or it doesn't.
- **Keyword matching beyond the highlighted sections is unproven.** LinkedIn documents where keywords get highlighted. The claim that keywords match across the whole profile comes from a secondary source only. Put your terms in the documented locations and don't count on matches anywhere else.
- **The AI agent grades requirement by requirement.** Secondary press says LinkedIn's Hiring Assistant "will read job descriptions or written prompts from recruiters and hiring managers and then suggest candidates based on specific criteria." A secondary review says it "marks every requirement as met, partly met or not met." That review also says it can message up to 25 people at once, and candidates see that the message comes from Hiring Assistant. This is how recruiters source candidates with AI search, as far as anyone outside LinkedIn can tell.
- **Unconfirmed filters stay ungraded.** I found no primary source for a "years of experience" filter, so this standard doesn't grade one.
- **Spotlights have a seat-tier limit.** Spotlight filters exist in LinkedIn Recruiter only, not in Recruiter Lite. A recruiter on Lite never sees your Spotlight eligibility, which is one more reason gate criteria carry the most weight.

Job boards publish even less about ranking than LinkedIn does. On Indeed and CareerBuilder, the gate that's documented is visibility itself: a profile set to not searchable can't be found by employer search at all. Field weighting on those boards isn't published, so grade them on visibility, title, skills, and location, and leave it there.

## The gate criteria: will the profile enter the result set?

Gate criteria test whether the profile appears in the result set at all. The target title must sit on the current role. Each must-have skill must be in the Skills section. Location must match the target. No must-have requirement can grade "not met" against the whole profile. Fail any one and nothing downstream matters.

This is the tier with the hardest numbers behind it. Here's how one filter reshapes a pool, using Data Analyst as the worked example.

| Search (Refolk's index) | Profiles | Share of US title pool |
|---|---|---|
| US, title "Data Analyst" | 65,307 | 100% |
| US, title + SQL skill | 12,914 | 19.8% |
| US, dropped by SQL filter | 52,393 | 80.2% |
| UK, title "Data Analyst" | 16,458 | 25.2% |

**80.2% - US "Data Analyst" title matches removed by adding one skill filter (SQL)**

In Refolk's index, 65,307 US profiles carry the title and only 12,914 also list SQL as a skill.

That 80.2% doesn't mean four in five US data analysts lack SQL. It means four in five title-matched profiles don't list it where a skill filter looks. If yours is one of them, a recruiter who adds that filter never sees you, however strong your bullets are.

#### One role, three gates, one shrinking pool

| Stage | Figure | Note |
| --- | --- | --- |
| US title "Data Analyst" | 65,307 | Refolk's index |
| Plus SQL in Skills | 12,914 | Refolk's index |
| Current title literally "Data Analyst" | 19 of 25 sampled | Small sample, indicative only |

*Each gate field a recruiter adds removes profiles that hold the skill or title somewhere other than the field the filter reads.*

Market size changes what a gate pass is worth. The UK title pool is about a quarter of the US pool. My inference is that in the US, passing the gates only gets you into a crowd of thousands, so rank and response criteria decide more there. In a smaller pool, passing the gates puts you in front of the searcher sooner. Either way, the gates come first.

### G1. Target title on the current role

- **Passes when:** one of your target title variants appears in the title field of the role marked current.
- **What it proves:** you'll match a Job titles filter for current relevance, not only on your history.
- **How it lies:** a match on a past role or on the headline alone also returns you, but for the wrong reason. See the failure modes section.
- **Evidence:** Documented (Job titles is a listed filter), plus Derived (Refolk's sample).

### G2. Every must-have skill in the Skills section

- **Passes when:** each must-have skill from your term list appears in the Skills section itself, spelled as the postings spell it.
- **What it proves:** you'll survive the Skills and Assessments filter.
- **How it lies:** the skill sits in About text or Experience bullets, so keyword search finds you and the skill filter drops you.
- **Evidence:** Documented, plus Derived (the 80.2% drop).

### G3. Location matches the target

- **Passes when:** the profile location is the place you'd be searched from, or the one your target postings name.
- **What it proves:** you'll survive a Location filter.
- **How it lies:** your location shows a home suburb while recruiters filter on the metro name. Check the value against how the postings name the place.
- **Evidence:** Documented.

### G4. No must-have graded "not met" on a semantic read

- **Passes when:** you grade each requirement in two or three real postings as met, partly met, or not met against the whole profile, and none of the must-haves comes out "not met".
- **What it proves:** an agent reading your profile against a pasted job description has nothing to disqualify you on.
- **How it lies:** you grade generously because you know your history. The agent only knows what's written. Grade only what's on the page.
- **Evidence:** Secondary (the agent's three-level scale comes from a review).

G4 is the slowest test to run by hand, because you're building a requirement grid for each posting. [Refolk](/candidates) scores how well your written history fits a specific posting, the same requirement-by-requirement read, so you can run G4 against each target posting without building the grid yourself.

### G5. Target terms in the highlighted sections

- **Passes when:** your title variants and must-have skills appear in at least one documented highlight location: profile card, Summary, Experience header, description, or location, or Skills.
- **What it proves:** a keyword search that skips filters will still surface and highlight the match.
- **How it lies:** the terms appear only in places LinkedIn doesn't document as highlighted, and you assume they count anyway.
- **Evidence:** Documented (highlight locations only).

## The rank and response criteria

Rank criteria check what orders you inside a result set: your current role marked current, and a recent profile update. Response criteria check the Spotlight and reply inputs you can actually set. The rest get recorded as uncontrollable, never as a fail.

### Rank criteria

- **K1. Current role marked current.** Passes when the role carrying your target title has "currently working here" set. What it proves: tenure and employer-based signals have something to read, and so does the Recruiters-only privacy protection. How it lies: an end date left on by mistake, or two roles both marked current with the wrong one leading. Evidence: Documented as an input to Spotlights and privacy. A direct ranking effect isn't established.
- **K2. Profile recently updated.** Passes when the profile has been updated since you fixed the target term list. What it proves: you meet the "recently updated" trigger for Active talent. How it lies: LinkedIn never defines "recently", so a pass can't promise you're still inside the window. Evidence: Documented trigger, window not established.

Grade K2 against your own target date, not a number of days. No public source gives the window, and I won't invent one.

### Response criteria

LinkedIn documents the triggers for three Spotlights. A fourth exists with no published criteria.

| Spotlight | Documented triggers | You control |
|---|---|---|
| Active talent | Recent update, resume shared, tenure above average, employer layoffs | Two of four |
| Interested in your company | Clicked "I'm interested" or interacted with company content | Yes |
| Rediscovered candidates | Prior InMail activity, saved to a project, applied to a job there | Partly |
| More likely to respond | Not published | Not gradable |

Score these response criteria:

- **S1. Open to Work set.** Use Recruiters only if you're employed. Evidence: Secondary. The only lift figure, 40% more InMails for the public frame, is attributed to LinkedIn second-hand. The "64% higher response rate" figure for Spotlights traces to a career blog, so don't cite it.
- **S2. Resume shared with recruiters.** Evidence: Documented Active talent trigger. Share the resume tailored to your target, not an old general one.
- **S3. Target companies followed, interacted with, or marked "I'm interested".** Evidence: Documented trigger for Interested in your company.
- **S4. Verification complete where available.** LinkedIn offers free identity, workplace, and educational institution verification. It says verified members see 60% more profile views and 50% more engagement on average. A secondary source notes this "reflects how active verified people tend to be, not the badge doing the work by itself." Tag it correlational, and grade N/A where identity verification isn't offered.
- **U1. Uncontrollable inputs recorded.** Write down tenure versus peers, layoffs at your employer, and any prior InMail history. These are notes, not scores.

Secondary sources also report a Verified Applicant Spotlight. I found no primary page for it, so this standard doesn't score it. Check your own LinkedIn help center to see whether it's documented for you.

#### Which response inputs to grade

Horizontal axis runs from Weak or no evidence to Documented evidence. Vertical axis runs from Outside your control to Inside your control.

| Quadrant | What it means |
| --- | --- |
| Folklore | Do not score, for example toggling Open to Work to reset priority |
| Grade it | Score pass or fail, for example shared resume, profile update, company interest |
| Ignore | Leave off the sheet, for example unpublished response-likelihood criteria |
| Record it | Note as uncontrollable, for example tenure versus peers, employer layoffs |

*Score only inputs you control that have documented evidence, record the uncontrollable ones, and drop folklore entirely.*

## Job-board visibility and privacy: the exposure criteria

Every searchable profile needs a written decision on visibility and contact exposure. On a job board, being searchable can expose more than LinkedIn's Open to Work does. Exposure criteria pass when the decision exists and matches what you intend, not when any particular setting is on.

### Indeed

- **Visibility.** The toggle reads "Employers can find you" or "Employers can't find you". To make your Indeed resume searchable to employers, set it to the first. Indeed's terms say "Not Searchable profiles are only visible to employers you've applied to or shared your resume with."
- **Contact masking.** Indeed "may mask your contact information (name, email, phone) on your profile, resume, or application with an alias (like your job title) to mitigate fraud". That happens at Indeed's discretion, not yours.
- **Conflicting pages.** An older Indeed page says contact details are only shared with employers when you apply. The current terms are less definite. Indeed's current default visibility isn't established from a primary source, and one secondary source says uploading a resume creates a public one. Open your own settings and read them.
- **No retroactive privacy.** "Changing your privacy settings will not affect previous applications or prevent Employers you have already contacted from reaching you."

### CareerBuilder

CareerBuilder has a "Hide contact details" option that "saves your profile/resume as public, but hides your contact info." That lets you pass the gate without publishing your phone number.

### LinkedIn Recruiters-only

The Recruiters-only dialog is reported to say: "While we take steps not to show recruiters at your current company, we can't guarantee complete privacy." The protection keys on the current company linked on your profile.

Staffing agencies fall under Indeed's "employers" and CareerBuilder's "employer customers". Whether data resellers can reach profiles is not established publicly.

> **Watch out:** Searchable on a board is wider than Open to Work
>
> A searchable job-board resume can be seen by any searching employer, agencies included. LinkedIn's Recruiters-only setting at least tries to exclude your employer's linked recruiter seats. Decide on phone exposure before you flip any board to searchable.

## The grading procedure

Run the procedure in order, with the candidate setting up the target and a separate grader scoring it. The times are desk estimates, not measured figures. Expect about four hours for the first full pass across all profiles.

#### Grade a profile from inventory to second grader

1. **List every searchable profile** - Inventory LinkedIn, Indeed, CareerBuilder, and any other board. Record each profile's visibility setting and contact exposure.
2. **Fix the target and its term list** - Pick one target role and two or three real postings, then extract title variants, must-have skills, and location into a fixed list.
3. **Run the filter gate test** - Check the title on the current role, must-have skills in the Skills section, and location against the target. Record pass or fail per filter field.
4. **Run the semantic gate test** - Grade each posting requirement met, partly met, or not met against the whole profile. Pass means no must-have is not met.
5. **Run the rank test** - Confirm the current role is marked current and the profile has been updated since the target was fixed.
6. **Run the response test** - Set Open to Work (Recruiters only if employed), share a resume, verify where available, and follow or mark interest in target companies. Record anything uncontrollable.
7. **Run the privacy check** - Link the current employer to its company page and write a decision for each board's searchable status and phone exposure.
8. **Have a second grader score it** - A peer scores independently from the same term list. Matching verdicts close the grade, and disagreements become fields to fix.

Use one sheet per profile. The grader fills the verdict column without seeing the candidate's own self-assessment.

**Sourceable profile grading sheet**

```
PROFILE: LinkedIn / Indeed / CareerBuilder / other: ________
GRADER: ________   DATE TARGET FIXED: ________
TARGET ROLE: ________
TITLE VARIANTS (from 2-3 real postings): ________
MUST-HAVE SKILLS: ________
TARGET LOCATION: ________

GATE (all must pass)
G1 Target title on current role ............ PASS / FAIL   field: ____
G2 Each must-have in Skills section ........ PASS / FAIL   missing: ____
G3 Location matches target ................. PASS / FAIL
G4 Semantic read, posting 1 / 2 / 3
   requirement: ________  MET / PARTLY / NOT MET
   requirement: ________  MET / PARTLY / NOT MET
   any must-have NOT MET? .................. PASS / FAIL
G5 Terms in highlighted sections ........... PASS / FAIL

RANK (all must pass)
K1 Current role marked current ............. PASS / FAIL
K2 Updated since target fixed .............. PASS / FAIL

RESPONSE (set, or N/A with reason)
S1 Open to Work, correct audience .......... SET / NOT SET
S2 Tailored resume shared .................. SET / NOT SET
S3 Target companies followed / interested .. SET / NOT SET
S4 Verification ............................ SET / NOT SET / N/A
U1 Uncontrollable inputs noted ............. tenure ____ layoffs ____

EXPOSURE (written decision required)
P1 Employer linked to company page ......... YES / NO
P2 Board searchable status ................. decision: ________
P3 Phone / contact exposure ................ decision: ________

UNEVIDENCED (not scored): ________
VERDICT: PASS / FAIL    FIELDS TO FIX: ________
```

*One sheet per profile. Fill the target block first, then each grader scores alone and compares only at the end.*

## How this standard goes wrong: failure modes and false positives

Most grading errors are false passes: a criterion looks met, but for a reason that won't hold up in a real search. These eight are the ones to check every time, in roughly the order they cost people inbound.

### 1. Skill only in prose

The profile turns up in a keyword search and vanishes under a Skills filter. In Refolk's index, 80.2% of US "Data Analyst" title matches drop out when SQL is required. **Check:** the term is in the Skills section itself, not only in About or bullets.

### 2. Title passes on old roles

A title search returns you because of a past role or your headline, not your current job.

| Search (Refolk's sample, n=25) | Literal "Data Analyst" current title | Share |
|---|---|---|
| US title | 15/25 | 60% |
| UK title | 21/25 | 84% |
| US title + SQL | 19/25 | 76% |

In the US sample, 40% of title matches had a different current title. I infer most of those matched on past roles or headlines, though the sample is too small to say exactly how. A pass that rests on an old title is a false positive for current relevance. **Check:** the target title is on the role marked current.

### 3. Treating a Spotlight as entry

Open to Work is set, a resume is shared, the badge is on, and the profile still never enters the result set. Spotlights reorder people already inside a search. **Check:** run every gate test before scoring any response criterion.

### 4. Folklore criteria

"Toggle Open to Work off and on to reset your priority" comes from a tip site and cites no LinkedIn source. **Check:** tag it unevidenced and keep it off the score.

> **Rule:** Unevidenced means unscored, not failed
>
> A criterion with no source is listed in the Unevidenced line and given no weight in either direction. Failing a profile on folklore is as wrong as passing it on folklore.

### 5. Misattributed figures

The "21x" figure gets quoted as proof that complete profiles get more views. Forbes reported it as LinkedIn data about photos: "users with a photo in their profile receive 21 times more profile views." The original LinkedIn page wasn't located. One ranking page attributes it to completeness and cites the wrong source. I found no LinkedIn primary source saying completeness is a search ranking signal at all. **Check:** every figure you rely on names the variable it actually measured.

### 6. Employer leak

Recruiters-only is set, but the current role isn't linked to the employer's company page, so the protection has nothing to key on. **Check:** "currently working here" is set and the company field links to the real company page, not plain text.

### 7. Assuming Indeed reverses

You switch a resume to private and assume your current employer, or an agency you dealt with, can no longer reach you. Indeed's terms say the change doesn't affect previous applications or employers you already contacted. **Check:** review your application history before you rely on the toggle.

### 8. Failing what isn't available

Identity verification is reported as "limited to select geographies". Marking it as a fail penalizes a profile for something it can't do. **Check:** grade S4 as N/A where verification isn't offered, and write down why.

> A profile that is easy to message but never enters the result set fails, however polished it looks.

## Verdict rules and keeping the grade current

A profile passes when all five gate criteria pass, both rank criteria pass, every controllable response input is set or marked N/A with a reason, and every exposure setting has a written decision. Any single gate or rank failure makes the verdict a fail, and the failing fields go straight onto the fix list.

### Agreement between graders

The verdict only counts when two graders working from the same term list reach it independently. Where they disagree, the disagreement usually points to an ambiguous field: a skill spelled two ways, a title variant that isn't on the list, or a requirement one grader read as partly met. Log it as a field to fix, change the profile so it's unambiguous, and re-grade that criterion only.

### When to re-grade

The grade expires when its inputs change. Re-grade when:

- **Your target role changes.** The term list changes, so G1 through G5 all need re-running, and the shared resume behind S2 has to match the new target. Refolk rebuilds the resume from your history and tailors it to the postings you've picked, so S2 can be fixed the same day.
- **You change jobs or titles.** K1, G1, and P1 all depend on the current role.
- **You change any privacy setting.** One secondary source says Indeed privacy changes "may take a few days" to apply. Check the setting again after a few days rather than assuming it took effect.
- **Time passes without inbound.** LinkedIn doesn't define "recently updated", so a K2 pass decays at an unknown rate. A real edit tied to your target keeps K2 honest. Treat the reported 30-day auto-disable of Open to Work as unverified, and re-check the setting yourself.
- **A help page changes.** Spotlight triggers, filter lists, and verification types come from LinkedIn and job-board help pages that can change. Re-read the Spotlights, Boolean filter, and verification help pages, plus each board's terms, before re-grading against them.

#### Before declaring a profile done

- [ ] Every searchable profile is listed with its visibility setting and contact exposure.
- [ ] The target term list came from two or three real postings and was fixed before grading started.
- [ ] The target title appears in the title field of the role marked current.
- [ ] Every must-have skill appears in the Skills section, spelled as the postings spell it.
- [ ] Profile location matches the target location as the postings name it.
- [ ] No must-have requirement from any target posting is graded not met.
- [ ] The profile was updated after the target term list was fixed.
- [ ] Open to Work is set to the intended audience, with Recruiters only if employed.
- [ ] A resume tailored to the target is shared with recruiters.
- [ ] Verification is complete or marked N/A with the reason written down.
- [ ] The current employer is linked to its company page, not entered as plain text.
- [ ] Each job board has a written decision on searchable status and phone exposure.
- [ ] No unevidenced criterion was scored in either direction.
- [ ] A second grader reached the same verdict, or every disagreement is logged as a field to fix.

Once every box is ticked, the profile is done for this target. If inbound still doesn't come after that, the next thing to question isn't the profile. It's whether the target itself has the demand you assumed.

## Frequently asked questions

### Why are recruiters not finding my LinkedIn profile?

The most common reason is a gate failure: the profile never enters the result set. Recruiter filters read structured fields like Job titles, Location, and Skills, so a skill mentioned only in your About text or bullets won't pass a Skills filter. In Refolk's index, one SQL skill filter removes 80.2% of US profiles that match the "Data Analyst" title. Check that your target title is on your current role and every must-have skill is in the Skills section.

### Does turning Open to Work off and on again reset my priority in recruiter search?

No LinkedIn source says it does. The claim comes from a tip list that cites no LinkedIn documentation, so this standard tags it as unevidenced and gives it no score. The inputs LinkedIn does document for its Active talent Spotlight include a recently updated profile and a resume shared with recruiters. Set those deliberately instead of toggling the badge and hoping.

### Does a complete or All-Star LinkedIn profile rank higher in recruiter searches?

I found no LinkedIn primary source saying profile completeness is a search ranking signal. The widely repeated 21x figure is about profile photos, reported as LinkedIn data by Forbes, and gets misquoted as a completeness effect. The 40x All-Star figure appears without a primary link. Complete the fields the filters actually read, and don't grade completeness itself as a ranking criterion.

### How do I make my Indeed resume searchable to employers, and is it safe?

Set Indeed's privacy toggle to "Employers can find you". Indeed's terms say Not Searchable profiles are only visible to employers you've applied to or shared your resume with. Before you switch, decide what contact details you'll expose. Indeed may mask your name, email, and phone with an alias at its discretion, and making the resume private later won't stop employers who already contacted you.

### How do recruiters source candidates with AI search?

LinkedIn Recruiter's Hiring Assistant is reported to read a job description or a written prompt from the recruiter, then suggest candidates, marking each requirement as met, partly met, or not met. A secondary review says it can message up to 25 people at once, and candidates see that the message comes from Hiring Assistant. Which profile fields it weights isn't published, so grade your whole profile against real postings.

### Is my LinkedIn profile recruiter ready if it already gets a lot of views?

Not necessarily. Views measure response, not inclusion in a specific search. Even LinkedIn's verification figure of 60% more profile views says nothing about entering a filtered result set for your target role. A profile is recruiter ready only when it passes the gate tests for the role you want: title on the current role, skills in the Skills section, location matching, and no must-have requirement unmet.

---

*From the Refolk guide library. I revise these guides rather than replacing them, so the current version is always at https://www.refolk.ai/candidates/guides/sourceable-profile-gate-rank-response*