As a recruiter, what do you think is more interesting in a candidate; years of experience or skills?

Both

"Experience without Skills is like a Glass without Water" & "Skills without Experience is like Water without a Glass" 

Probably we should first diffrenciate between years experience and practising experience.

some one can worfor example15 years with routine job while another proactive can gain more practical experience in5 years.

Anyway, sure training and skills are able to shape the experience faster.

The most important is the quality of experience and skills not number of years

Skill weighs more if the job is more technical and less managerial. Years of experience takes precedence if job is more managerial. That's how recruiters should look into it.

We weigh the candidate using multiple factors including skills and years of experience and cannot deny importance of either. 

i believe for finding the candidate you must check the skills then experience.

Apparently skills and experiences both are important, but the most important thing which I always consider when hiring someone is ability to learn and absorb in any environment.

The question is how we would analyze that a person has ability to learn fast and adjusting in a team.

There are few behavioral signs which could clearly show that how a person is, and how much willingness and ability of learning he/she has. If a person is experienced but has difficulty in learning new things fastly that would surely be a bardon on your resources. Giving him/her extra time to teach her/him each and every thing again and again could be a painful task. A fast learner always remain an asset for an organization, because fast learning supports the innovation and acceptance of change on every stage of professional life.

A soft spoken person with gentle nature always remains friendly to his/her team members, which creates positive working environment with win-win approach.

If you summarize... this ability to learn fast is also a skill :) so it means skilled person is much more acceptable than experienced or even hi-fi degrees holders.

Skills are definitely important, however how these skills are implemented by an experienced candidate is the aspect interesting to analyse and note.  A person may be very skilful, but in his career has never utilised it to his fullest potential due to probably a laidback and casual attitude.  Such candidate can be more of a liability to an organization due to the attitude he exhibits

Both are important, but most interesting is to read about and hear about the experience of the candidate. With potential candidates, experience can more readily be weighed against a position to be filled or used to create a position to suit a candidate who shows potential to become a real asset.

both is very important for the candidates according of that we can decide to joining a company. most of company interested to find candidate has a lot of experience and skills to joining any vacancy require

Definitely, I would go for 'skills' and 'passion' as passion could build a unique skill that you may not find anywhere else no matter how hard you search :) I do know that for a fact because I work based on passion never based on anything else.

Skills and experience both are needed but I'd focus more on the skills part :)

Someone with no experience in say marketing but he/she has a very unique skill that could help with marketing.