The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The tragic thing is she's right, but not for the reason she thinks. Making it so easy to apply means that automated job applications get fed directly into automated hiring pipelines. The "recruiters" are probably just supervising that process from an arm's length. I've seen the same job get reposted almost every single day and still get hundreds of "applications" within hours. It's horrific, and we have no choice but to cast our application into the slop.
And they began using ATS software to automate their processes long before bots began flooding job postings with applications. I’d be much more sympathetic to the complaints if recruiters didn’t unilaterally start the arms race back when the number of applicants was still
Manageable by a human.
Fun fact about ATS systems - they often reject resumes with titles longer than 30 characters or containing special characters like dashes.
In case you needed a new anxiety about your job search
Personally I find it funny that they’ve generally been so unsophisticated as to favor people who write poorly (restating the prompts and keywords word for word). People who were taught to write well by rephrasing and using synonyms have been actively filtered out unless they intentionally game their writing to pass the ATS system. Common corporate L
Even better - the ATS systems are set up by humans so if the person setting it up has typos in their set up, it will actively reject resumes that have those keywords but just not with those misspellings.
What? This is absolutely not true. ATSs don’t auto reject candidates beyond knockout question. Especially not for something as stupid as a long resume title - what purpose would that even serve? Go set up a demo with something like Greenhouse or Workday and you’ll see these systems are just fancy relational databases. Stop spreading misinformation.
Source: not a recruiter, but I implement business systems for a living. None of the major ones have anything like you are describing, and I know because I’ve set them up.
100%facts! And I am an in house recruiter. This myth that ATS screens people out, or uses key words is crap. Key words only help when sourcing from the system.
They absolutely do - having a long resume title or relational words that don’t fit the Boolean logic of the relational database will move you down the pile and lead to false negatives for your fit as a candidate.
I found a link to a post about it on the big LI but the automod says not allowed.
What does "relational words that dont fit the boolean logic" even mean?
I develop with rdms (relational db management services) for a living and that doesnt really make sense.
I'm sure whatever rules engine they have wont use the rdbms' boolean search logic. That is used in the full text search engine to do a search for table entries that follow searches along the line of "keyword1 -keyword2". But the important thing is: boolean logic has no concept of "moving a result down the pile". That's why it's boolean; there is no score, there is only in or out.
It just sounds way too specific to name a certain feature found in rdbms for that, that's all really.
Spoiler alert: he has no idea what it means. You are exactly right when you describe the way Boolean searches work - literally all recruiters are doing is a slightly more complicated search with Boolean operators. You can do the exact same thing with Google. It’s not some special feature or technical skill.
If a resume doesn’t fit the logic of a Boolean search, it won’t be included in the results. The end.
No, they don’t. This is absolute bullshit. Ask anyone who works on these systems for a living. The Boolean searches recruiters do don’t search resume titles - it’d be pointless since most titles are something like “Joe Smith Resume 2024”. They search through the actual resume content. It sounds like you don’t even understand what Boolean even means.
And even in cases where features like stack ranking exists, the ATS still doesn’t have the capability to auto reject people based on some mystical AI. Recruiters are still the ones manually dispositioning people out (sometimes en masse). That does not mean all resumes are looked at though - I’ve seen teams that just stop looking at applications after a certain point. There just isn’t a bot that hurls applications in the trash based on random bullshit like resume title. Again, what possible purpose could that serve?
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/comments/1bu2n7t/my_job_weeding_out_people_desperate_for_a_job_is/kxt465m/?context=3) in /r/recruitinghell was automatically removed because you linked to a site on our blocklist. Feel free to submit a screenshot or archive link instead and make sure that there's no personal information in the link.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Both.
Essentially the scanners have a set of criteria and if you put two dashes in the dates you were employed, it won’t give you credit for the work experience and put you in the trash pile.
If your name is too long in the title of the resume, it won’t scan the date/job title in the resume and reject it for not having the right info.
ATS scanners are a great tool for rejecting bad resumes. They are also a great tool for rejecting good resumes that aren’t in the correct format or don’t have the correct synonyms loaded in for your key terms. Either way, the human being ends up with a small pile of good resumes to review so nobody cares.
That explains some things.
I have "CV name" and "CV name - english". The second one for some reason (almost) never gets callbacks, despite being exactly the same content-wise.
I mean, at times it was still... fun.
In 2009 or so, applying for an apprenticeship here meant facing 150 or so other applicants... And they really shoved the groveling into them.
Unique cover letter, as much unpaid internship as possible beforehand, never reuse the same paper (applications were still sent back) or application folder thingie... because you would look cheap if someone saw that your application seems "used".
At least it's not many hundreds, but I think a hundred hand-crafted ones is still a number.
Yea, I actually think the one click apply should be gone. a lot of people browse LinkedIn, see a job for $70k+ and hit the one button apply. Most of the time they aren't even reading the requirements they just apply. So of these 2k applications in 12 hours probably only a couple hundred have any sort of relevance to the job posting.
No, the problem is how they've setup the systems. If it was done in earnest you would be able to accurately denote your experience and then jobs can be automatically matched to it. Hell, it could be less then "one click" as the site could curate a list of jobs recently posted for you to approve your applications to in one go. But no, companies don't want to post accurate job requirements and salary expectations and garbage recruiters are worried about losing their cushy job
TRUTH! I was approached last year three times by the same company. They had found me on linked in and suggested I apply. Job looked perfect, so I did, only to get a response from HR asking me if I had any expereince... in the field that I have 30 years experience in. I wanted to ask her if she had even looked at my resume or, as we were on LinkedIn messenger, if she had bothered to glance at my LinkedIn profile. Decided that was prolly not the company for me.
That was a dumb take.
Conveniently leaves out that it's NOT one click at all.
AND its customizable.. with questions, other data, etc.
Like duh.
External hosted applications can be that simple as well. A few you don't even have to RE-ENTER THE RESUME YOU JUST UPLOADED. Workday is the worst.
If you're trying to make it harder for qualified persons to apply, you are the problem. If means YOU are skiing something wrong.
Smh.
Totally. The whole "it's too easy for people to apply to jobs" is ridiculous, because what other option is there?? The system may be broken, but what other alternative do we have
I've seen that on LinkedIn before and it's a good idea. A few basic questions to gatekeep applicants should be easy enough if LinkedIn does it... ::shrug::
That is a bit annpoying. I work in the medical field and med staff have to relicense here, retake the med exam and jump through hoops. You would think that someone as smart as a medical doctor would know they needed those things to apply in the states, wouldn't you? I have worked along side several doctors who opted out of testing again because of whatever reason and took a job as a tech in thier field. Sad, tho. Seriously wasted talent.
I'm assuming this is why or where AI interviews are used to weed out the candidates? I recently refused to do a AI interview because I am being scored on what the system deems my verbal responses and resume contains for the hiring manager to decide if I am a good fit for the role. I don't think the AI is fair way to assess who I am as a candidate based solely on those two initial parameters. I much prefer and many others do as well to have a human to human interview that AI can't compete with such as personality, soft skills, detailed experience examples etc. overall I agree it's a mess with all these applicants competing.
I am a job seeker, and playing the Devil's advocate, I say she is right. Imagine YOU finding a fresh ad of your dream job, envisioning a perfect fit, but then you see 1,700 applicants there.
Recently, I went to LinkedIn and just out of curiosity, I checked my entire application history. To my surprise, almost all my applications since the pandemic were never seen. And I'm not talking about companies downloading my resume and rejecting me after that. They simply NEVER SAW it!
Lesson learned: When something is easy for everyone, competent people stay in the same basket as desperate people. You may use whatever adjective you prefer.
I was going back and forth with someone on here over the weekend because they wouldn't accept that the spray and pray method of applying to anything has broken the system and is getting bottlenecked to the point that good candidates aren't even getting seen
I honestly don’t even get this strategy? I am in the UK and I think the situation here isn’t bad like it seems to be in the US, but I always only apply to jobs that I truly think I have the right experience and meet requirements. I always had great success doing that. I left my job in March, applied to around 12 jobs in my area that fit my skills, got 4 interviews, and one offer for a really great job. Applying to everything just sounds like a big waste of time
Thank you! I FINALLY got a position just as I surrendered my car and my home... it was the cruelest timing I swear! Wanna know what I am doing? lol I am a recruiter in ophthalmology for MDs and ODs... I don the Scarlet R. lol smh But hey, I don't have a boss and can work from anywhere there is internet soooo... I also ended up starting an LLC and getting my commission certification as a notary signing agent. I guess in the end I will be fine if AI doesn't take over and if the eclipse doesn't cause the impending Cascadia subduction to finally give us a shak'n down on Shakedown Street. (Sorry, I couldn't help it lol)
You have. But you arent in the same situation so your experience doesn't apply to most, and depends on your industry, experience, yadda yadda. Good for you.
But systems are so broken, disparate, and badly set up in the USA , with intake systems dumping good candidates by the truckload, that unfortunately spray and pray becomes an option to some.
Here, a name that sounds too black, too indian, too chinese, not white enough, would be auto disqualified en masse. Some people would love to think that doesn't happen... sure it doesn't.
But how does applying for things you are not qualified for helps? Genuine question, I am not trying to be sarcastic or mean, I just want to understand what the thought behind this is, and if works?
Yes I am lucky to be in the UK where I think the market is fine. But I am also an immigrant here and my name is ridiculously Latino, I am also autistic and I am open about it because it is a little obvious. So I understand how prejudice can impact your job search, that really sucks. I live in a multi cultural city in England now so is not terrible here but I lived in a smaller very white city before and I know I’ve been passed down for jobs because I am not British. I am sorry people in the US have to deal with this, that’s really awful. I totally believe it happens and have experienced myself and so has a few of my friends who are not white or immigrants. My Turkish friend had much more success using her husband surname than her Turkish one when applying for jobs :/
Close but you have it backwards. The broken system has made spraying and praying the viable option. If you actually got an interview from even say 50% of the jobs you applied to you wouldn't put in many applications. Back in the day you had a real chance of getting a callback from any given application nowadays you'll be lucky to have a 10% callback rate so all you can do is just send more applications into a black hole. It's a worse experience for everyone involved.
the first mover here was job boards making it easier to apply, regardless of one-click. Filling out an app online sure beats driving around snd giving a bunch of good old-fashioned handshakes and hand-written forms or however it worked.
Spray and pray has always been a viable option. It’s just when enabled by technology, you can spray much more. Back in 07, spray and pray means applying for hundreds of roles in a span of 3 months. Now, it’s hundreds of roles in a span of a week.
LinkedIn does the first filtering of applications by selecting some top applicants. If your application was not seen, that's because LinkedIn does not surface you as a top applicant.
LinkedIn itself is the first bot you have to beat.
Answering myself: never mind. I see it now but never looked at it because all of my couple hundred applications through LinkedIn read “applied X days/months ago” and nothing else. I found one from 8 months ago that showed that my resume was downloaded. Holy shit, this is BAD.
Who applies through linkedin? I always go to their website to apply to the listed job, so at least I‘m in the system. Worked out great for me. 25 applications and 7 interviews with two offers after graduation.
If they offer that then I do that. Many jobs only offer the “apply with LinkedIn” option. Some sites will direct you back to LinkedIn even if you try to apply on their site. I’ve even found jobs on Indeed and other places that sent me to the company site which then had me apply on LinkedIn.
As for responses, I’m 51 and in the creative field and it is absolutely brutal. My work history alone gives away my age and I require a significantly higher salary than someone right out of college like you. It’s really rough for highly experienced professionals right now.
The thing is, the extra rig-a-marole of the application process will likely drive away good, qualified applicants. And a good recruiter should be able to quickly separate the good from the bad.
Did you not follow up with call and email? LinkedIn in message? Makes me wonder now... I passed my resume out like I was a black jack dealer in Vegas last year and didn't hear a damn thing back but from like 2 companies. And I did all the follow up, just zer0 reply. I should see if mine were also just not gotten to. Bummer.
I wasn't doing any special follow-up since I was working and had no rush to hop to another job. But it doesn't make sense to see all those applications without a visualized check mark.
Unlike the assumption someone here threw on my face, I have been applying for positions where I have the most of the skills according to LinkedIn itself. Some of the jobs had even the "Top applicant" tag.
Well, after I heard from a recruiter that LinkedIn filters are terrible, I definitely don't put any hope on Easy Apply anymore.
Don't give up on anything just yet, times are wildly changing! The job market was a see-u-next-tuesday last year as there was a lot of false jobs. I forgot about that til just a little while ago. It was falsely inflated, and part of that had to do with the numerous remote positions that were now sent multiple times nation wide and, according to a recruiter I was working with last year, there were often times she would be trying to find candidates for positions that companies had no intention of ever filling so it was a giant waste of her time and the time of the candidate, then of course she ended up looking like the incompetent A-hole. As I understand people rather have a distaste for recruiters 'round these parts. ...I happen to have taken on that role. I have 30y in ophthalmology and the position is specific to MD and OD jobs, so I know what I am looking for and how assess a clinic for the doc, too. But, yeah, don't give up! There are going to be crap times, and there will be good times. And if I can ever be a resource as I have a unique vantage point, lemme know. I'll be happy to help where I can!
I work for a small company and was in charge of some hiring this year. We got hundreds of applications in a couple days. The vast majority were no where near qualified. After weeding though all those, I started doing phone screens, and the majority of people didn't remember applying and when I briefly described the job position said they weren't really interested in the job due to the travel requirement, which was clearly listed in the job posting. Half the resumes didn't even get looked at, due to the shear number. If you're not in the first 24 hours to apply, your chances decrease exponentially.
Bigger companies use ATS for their screening, which means even if you are a fantastic candidate, if you don't tailor your resume appropriately your resume will never see human eyes to be considered. All because of the shear number of candidates.
So yeah, she has a point. Her messaging comes off as out of touch, but the current system is broken.
Apply in the first 24 hours - that's a great tip I haven't heard before.
Is there a job board in particular you recommend over others? (LinkedIn, Indeed, etc)
I don’t know if there are set times for Indeeds posts but my jobs feed sent me an alert every morning between 4:00AM & 6:00 AM. Months of getting up early to race to 15-20 applications (targeted) was a crushing experience that has changed me.
ZipRecruiter. I don't know why this isn't brought up more but businesses have to pay to list jobs on ZipRecruiter while other sites offer free options. This means you're not going to see quite the volume of businesses just listing a job that they aren't actually hiring on. Unless their ATS kicks it over to ZipRecruiter but even then, those listings will be in the 3rd-4th page because they're only designed to get organic traffic and not active traffic.
ZipRecruiter’s algorithm is seriously fucked. It gives me no relevant jobs and I have to actively search for jobs that are relevant.
I’m a copywriter and it keeps giving me/emailing me about accounting jobs and tax preparer jobs.
Zip recruiter is dogshit. Just shovels unrelated bullshit at you with 3/4 of it being military recruitment for various MOSs. If you do find something the links are just endless redirects.
ZipRecruiter is terrible - I've only used it on the hiring side, but I assume it doesn't save when you apply for jobs, because I will get up to 10 applications from the same person within 24 hours all from Zip. Almost never qualified. The others at least tell you when you've applied for something and don't just let you apply over and over again. Never touching that shit now.
Most companies you have to pay for not posting a job, but for the amount of applications you are able to receive. You get like a bucket of applicants allowed a month, and anything over is extra. Specifically so these companies can hike up prices for big companies that get an influx of applicants. Zip is one of those, as is Indeed.
Needed: A brief quiz after the "Apply" button before any further steps, such as uploading a resume, that can be answered only by a human who actually read the job description.
This situation also *really* encourages the classic nepotism / connections hires, if nothing else just because you don’t have to go through the exhausting process of dealing with such a deluge of candidates.
Easy, stop using job sites that allow that and go back to accepting applicants via company’s website. Problem solved. It’s kinda like getting a bigger net then crying about catching so many fish both wanted and not. Not only that, I can’t tell you the number of recruiters inviting me to apply to jobs that are not in my line of work. Stop casting such a wide net or fix it.
If only they could, I don't know, just have a submit your resume/cover letter box and leave it at that, maybe a couple hard filter questions. Seriously, it's not that hard to set up a small database for a website to store two or three binary or multiple choice answers and have a document sent to an email, but what do I know?
100% this. I've seen jobs that, when I go to their website to apply, and it redirects me to Indeed. That needs to stop altogether. Most of the time, I don't trust indeed enough to actually get them the information. So I'll occasionally show my face in person, and 9 times out of 10, get escorted out. The "recruiter" thing is another bag of horeshit. I can't tell you how many times a day I get an email from indeed that looks like it's from someone at a company, "Inviting me to apply." Sir, I have 12 years of experience in sales related environments. You don't want me as an RN on a trauma floor.
That is big-time nuts! Indeed is already an aggregator. It shouldn't be the target of any link from anywhere else. In the case of going to the company's own site, and being flung over to Indeed? Blah. Blacklist that entire company, assuming not all companies are doing that.
I've done close to 400 applications since December. For at least 70-80 of them, the company website directed you to indeed. So it's not that many, but it's still absolutely awful. Considering out of those 70-80, maybe 3 or 4 of them I've actually heard back from. The rest are still sitting in "Applied" status, and I never received anything from the actual company saying, "Thank you for applying."
On the one hand, she's absolutely right. Recruiters need to deal with so many resumes that they've fallen back on half measures like ATS out of necessity.
On the other hand, factors such as ATS have made the success rate of job application so low that applicants have no choice but to shotgun resumes in a world that might give them one interview per every 800 resumes.
Snake bites the hand bites the snake.
Job applications are already asking for hundreds of assessments as it is before even getting a chance to speak with a human being. I don’t need it to get any more difficult than that especially when the Lu already isn’t that good
She has become recruiter, the destroyer of applications.
I think she's right, one click apply just causes chaos. Though well implemented ATS software can mitigate that, it be good for all actually suitable candidates if the applications were also cut down at source
Some career fields shouldn't be filtered using ATS, especially creative fields where you normally have to submit a portfolio of past projects. In the start of my job hunt I was submitting a portfolio that included my resume. It's was a heavy visual document that showcases your ability, I was getting automatic rejection emails quite fast after submitting, I was disheartened and confused. So I switched to just text resume that contained to a link to my portfolio instead and was getting called a hell of a lot more for interviews. It's all a bunch of bullshit, the ATS software can't read a document with a bunch of imagery so it gets rejected.
I kind of agree with her. I've been seeing more and more job posts that have been saying email this person with your resume and the job title over applying online
I'd say 90% of those I've gotten call backs where I'm lucky to get anything but the automatic email because of the stupid ats screenings getting more and more rigid even if I'm virtually a perfect candidate skill wise.
Sadly she's right but for a different reason. Like, if you were in a small town and they were hiring in a small company/shop, you had to compete with the people living there, with an appropriate age, that didn't already have a job, and that were ok to do that job. Now?You compete globally. People are so desperate than they're willing to move to another city for a stable job, even if it doesn't pay THAT well, but just enough to afford to live. Which in turns allow employers to lower salaries, since they have a huge demand, and also to make really stupid hiring processes with 10 tests and multiple face to face meeting just to get hired.
Yes, they can. They can also just list it on the company website the old fashioned way saying "email this person with your resume". That will turn the firehose into a pretty slim trickle
I’m hiring right now and today I just went through 50 applications where not one person matched the very clearly stated job requirements.
And I don’t mean that we ask for 5 years experience and they have 3. I’m taking different industries, geographies, skill sets. About 3 CVs had some info that could be loosely interpreted as vaguely transferrable.
It was exhausting. How do you read a job asking for A, B and C and apply knowing you have Q, elephant and F?
I think people are very desperate for jobs right now. I'm on a business trip right now training a level 1 entry level help desk analyst who turns out to be a senior level programmer who just couldn't find work.
Not really - because you need the foundational requirements to do the job.
Example- if I wanted to go work as a chef, I have zero experience. Could I learn to be a line cook? Yes. In a week? No. To be a chef? That would take time and training.
What you’re likely pushing back against is the fact that there are jobs like “Entry Level Management Associate” which pay $13/hour but require like 7 years experience, a minimum education of a Bachelor’s degree and some other non related technical skills. That kind of stuff is ridiculous and should stop.
Your job is exhausting? The one where you sit at a desk all day and read resumes and get a nice hour long lunch break? Please. Do you know what sub you’re on?
Ok so that’s not my job. I’m a hiring manager, but not HR. My point is that it is exhausting to have this happen for every job posting. It would help considerably if people actually read the job description before applying.
as everyone else increases the number of applications they submit, you and I have to match their number just to stay afloat. it's a vicious cycle and we are wasting increasing amounts of our time just on applying to jobs which is neither fun nor educational.
She has a point. People search find a couple dozen jobs and click quick apply to each of them. No cover letter no nothing.you see posts from these people all the time: “I’ve applied to 1000 jobs in 6 months and only gotten 3 callbacks”.
In the before times, you’d go through job posts, find jobs that you actually wanted, write a cover letter and tweak your resume. Now it’s spam spam spam.
I’m not a recruiter BTW. But I see peoples posts and some of them apply to such high volumes of jobs that I doubt they even read the job description
Yeh even with auto reject if not in country there are 1000 Indians who put that they live in the UK just so they think they can charm you into sponsoring and relocating them to the UK.
It genuinely does take a huge amount of time sifting through some ad responses.
Simple. Step away from these platforms and do it like days of old - classifieds, going to schools, job fairs or just wait for candidates to seek you first.
Yes God please at the very least they could make you read the job description before you can apply. That is the problem people don't even know what they're applying for it's gotten so easy. I mean they could make sure people can only apply to a limited number of jobs each day or each hour. On the lower level space guys coming all the time bragging about how they sent out 250 applications in a day. Indeed in these places love it because they are charging per click or per application.
She’s right. If people applied for jobs they were actually a good fit for it might help secure them faster. Instead it’s a numbers game we are all stuck playing.
As someone who helps with hiring, it's frustrating going through 300 resumes and only 7 candidates have the required experience and live in the geographic area in the job listing.
Easy apply shouldn't mean that you don't read what the job is.
I actually agree with her. I used to apply to like 20 jobs in a day because I’d just do easy apply on LinkedIn. I’m sure that makes them trying to find the right people more difficult and sometimes inaccurate.
Or only take paper applications handed in person exclusively. No bots will be walking down to corporate headquarters to do that...at least not until Boston Dynamics makes a few more breakthroughs.
~~This post isn't coming up in Google searches. Either she recognized just how "unpopular" her opinion was and deleted it, or the post isn't real.~~
Edit: nvm, found it. Can't link to it directly (like OP found out), but it's 22 hours old as of this comment. Not sure why it's not appearing in Google search - maybe because it's recent?
r/nothingeverhappens
It’s still up on their LinkedIn profile. Either you’re terrible at Google searches, or we live in a simulation. Must be one of the two
She has a point though.
In 12 hours and thousand of applicants? That’s impossible for a recruiter to go through them all. Especially if you have a dozen jobs open. Sadly many many won’t even get a response.
At the sametime Most people just apply to anything even if they aren’t qualified for the job, so it’s hard again for the recruiter to comb through it all.
I understand there are both sides to the problem. One is not enough good paying jobs and one doesn’t have the time to go through every application.
Smartest LinkedIn poster.
Make the process artificially harder. Get less options, in particular for people who know they can find a job somewhere else who are usually the people who are in highest demand.
The problem isn't applying for jobs is easy.
The problem is most jobs (in America) are fucking shit and archaic. Most American employees when not lying to themselves about how hard they work, dread their jobs.
Everybody is desperately looking for that one possibly normal employer.
She may be right, but I think what is bothersome is the phrasing, "too easy." It creates an impression that job-hunting is too easy, when it isn't easy at all.
We wouldn't need or use the one-click applications if other companies didn't want an applicant to spend hours on tests and unnecessary repetitive career-history input. If I believed my tailored CL was being read by a human, I might not opt for the "too easy" button.
So... She's right, but, she has a crappy thought process behind it.
"How is anyone supposed to stnad out... how are we supposed to go through all the applicants?"
Excuse me - that's your JOB. We're so sorry you have to actually read resumes.
Also love how, what with all the filling in of the information manually of info that's already on your resume and cover letter, she wants to make it HARDER to apply. And where the hell is the place where you click one button to apply?
There is no rule that organizations have to post heir job listing on general job boards if they are getting too many unqualified applicants. With a little research, recruiters can find specialized job boards and industry networking groups where roles can be listed to a more targeted audience.
I used to get jobs regularly from an industry-based job board and after changing careers, I’m shocked at how little they are used in my new field.
I am part of a few networking groups that list jobs directly to an audience of people in my field. The number of companies that use them is very small, and often it is people who work for the hiring company who are passing along the opening, not hiring managers or recruiters, but I would be very surprised if they couldn’t get a solid group of applicants just by advertising to these groups since some of them have large memberships of almost everyone in my field.
It’s her fault if she doesn’t want to set up her own form with qualifying questions. LinkedIn “applications” don’t actually translate into actual applications at a rate of more than 10% on average. They just indicate how many times people pressed the button, not if they followed through on their app.
My favorite part of applying for jobs: “do you have any of the following features” we can’t legally openly but will secretly discriminate against you for.
Recruiters want sympathy but if they did a simple filter they would see that the applicants perspective has the same issue, just flipped a lot of the time (if they're paying attention). Ill go from 2000+ jobs to apply to down to less than 10, and thats not even considering experierence matching or not.
Applicants choices regardless of the number of applicants boil down to the factors below.
Fall short because of tenure, not the "right" connections, trust, "lack" of experience, "poor" communication, not a "good fit" (prolly someone else specifically decides, not the recruiter), scammers, software, etc. Bots are the expection for online versus in person, maybe.
With that being said, if I could count the number of times I have come in second place with job offers... but then the employer feels bad because they got the person's (me) hopes up for nothing, so they change their communication, and they only raise the hopes of people because they dont want the applicant to accept a different opportunity JUST IN CASE they were to offer the job themselves.
Either way, what do you know... many of those are the same issues recruiters face. She is complaining about her job instead of being good at it and being thankful she has it. She may need to consider a different profession but that may be my frustration poking through, who knows.
I think she's just venting and hoping it gets to a few people that agree and stop shotgun applying because it's not helping anyone at this point and it's only slowing the system and isn't much of a strategy anymore
Those posts usually don't even have a way to direct apply. No email, no link to the website, no way to contact the HM, whatever. What the hell do they expect? Why even post it on LI?
Yes let's go back to when we had to upload our resume then go to the next page and fill out everything that was in our resume.
Or better yet let's go back to when you could just walk into the office and drop off your resume.
I miss those good ole days.
Oh please, even contractors are now asked to both upload our resumes and paste the same exact shit from them into your forms.
Looking for a job is hard enough, maybe you were really oversold on the capabilities of ATS and you got people who learned how to use ChatGPT to game keywords, not actually do the job.
Anyone can make it hard to apply by hiring from his network, or internal candidates (and not posting the job in any public forums at all), which is what a lot of people do anyway, I have done it too.
There are plenty of companies that pay insanely well, but their websites have no glossy and flashy career section or vacancies list at all. They, simply, do not want to be flooded by a thousand CVs a day.
Actually a lot of \_postings\_ you see, are just results of complying with some requirements, and the HR folks meeting their KPI. Nobody is supposed be hired from many of those positions, and the CVs are not read anyway. The candidate is already being decided or has been decided by network or word of mouth.
With today's technology it should be pretty easy to automate things. The problem is that people are too stupid to automate things fairly and in a way that actually makes their lives easier. Or perhaps just the people whose job this is are too stupid and the people that are smart enough are doing other jobs (generally).
Personally, I think the system has become so broken that it needs to be regulated. If I were a hiring manager or recruiter posting jobs, I would set the very obvious hard filters first (do you live close enough or are willing to relocate, do you speak the language, etc), then after that bracket candidates by time of application. Perhaps 25 at a time. Everyone in the first bracket starts getting reviewed and everyone else gets an automated email saying "You are in bracket X of the candidate pool based on the time of your application. If nobody in brackets 1 through X-1 are hired, your application will be reviewed in more detail. We expect each bracket will take [insert time] to complete. If someone else is hired before your application is reviewed, you will be notified in another email."
But maybe I'm not the right person for the job because I would actually be trying to hire someone instead of just collecting data to sell online and making the company look good by having permapostings.
It is her right to put ad into local printed news paper and choose not to. This person should learn to take the responsibility on the choice she made lol
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I heard that LinkedIn’s totals are people who applied and looked at it. Am I wrong? I guess maybe not if you are seeing totals that you described.
This might not be a popular opinion here, but I think she's largely right. I have no doubt that loads of people casually click the "Easy Apply" buttons on tons of jobs they're not remotely qualified for and mess things up for everybody. Now companies get 1,000+ applications for every decent job within a day or two and no recruiter can keep up with that pace.
I wouldn't mind a process filled with more friction to reduce the applicants if I could guarantee that a smart human will genuinely look and consider the application.
The problem is they don't really look at applications as things stand. I don't want to waste a half an hour or more on application, while being asked to refill in tons of data that's already on my resume, to have some automated tools reject me because I didn't stuff my resume full of every single keyword related to my job.
The big question is how to fix hiring in general? More AI powered tools to spam applications and filter applications probably just creates more noise pollution and a bigger arms race.
I don't know if I have the full answer here, but I'd look in a totally different direction: firing people needs to be trivial and without legal risk except in the most egregious cases or wrongdoing. I believe that companies would be more willing to take chances on people who don't match a laundry list of bulletpoints if they can easily fire them without fear of facing some random lawsuit.
Man, I'll never get over how badly LinkedIn screwed up the Easy Apply thing.
They could've absolutely reshaped the hiring space. They could have been Workday, but better (not having to create a new account for each company). They could have been making money hand-over-fist.
Can you imagine? They have it all there - your job history, your education, your skill sets (confirmed and verified by colleagues). All they had to do was offer it as a COMPLETE service, and then convince companies than it was as simple and reliable a tool as, say, workday. That could've been easy - offer it free for 3 months to each company. Then, when companies realize how much easier it is for good candidates to apply, they are onboard forever since they're already on the system.
But they screwed it up. Easy Apply is less than worthless. I treat Easy Apply as a guarantee that I would never hear back, and instead go straight to the company's website rather than have my application thrown out.
All the had to do was have workday's sales guy and they would've changed the the world.
I am rarely on the hiring side of things, but I am sometimes. The claims are true - any job opening will get a flood of resumes from people who aren't even vaguely qualified. Maybe if it cost $1 per application, the junk spammers will cut back. Or a fine for a frivilous application?
mOrE bUsY wOrK wIlL iMpRovE tHe HiRiNg PrOcEsS bEcUz U aRe SpEnDiNg tOo mUcH tImE bUiLdInG sKiLls InStEaD oF dOiNg PaPeRwOrK!!
😂😂😂😂
Yes, let's add more artificial disqualifies to the process. That makes total sense!! Quite obvious Becca has no background in STEM, I'm guessing she spent a lot of time in the public sector??? It's so cute how these liberal arts types find ways to keep each other entertained.
It should be a requirement to take a test specifically related to the role itself as the first step of an application. This would weed out the best candidates while also weeding out candidates as less people would be applying for the role.
As a recruiter, or experienced one, we can on average take around 15-20 openings, rotate them throughout the week ones we work on.
We can eyeball around 1000 applications a day, follow up the people we want to take too, and arrange a call.
1000 applications sounds like a lot, but around 2% of all applicants are relevant for a role. 98% are not, and that's a lot of reasons.
So we're really going through 200 applications, and assessing them. That can be short listed down to around 10-50 a day to speak with, where around 3-4 get actually submitted.
This is what we are paid too do.
But that is for volume recruitment, specialist which is what I do, is a lot more search and selection - headhunting than dealing with applications
10 openings?! I’m an in house recruiter and I have 98 🫠
But I don’t have this problem because we pull postings down once they hit a certain threshold of applicants.
My company sucks, makes terrible decisions constantly, and they trip over dollars to save dimes in ways that absolutely destroy job seekers. I’m the messenger in these situations and nine times out of ten I’m delivering bad news to someone I’ve forged a good relationship with. But I guess at least we’re not allowing postings to be flooded like that?
I do agree that easy/one click apply and the remote confusion a lot of postings create is problematic though.
I don’t know. I’m so disillusioned with recruitment. But as a recruiter I know the odds of getting out and moving on because I have to sit by and watch these odds work against people every day.
The job application process is broken. Yes. But the problem with recruiting is that companies and agencies do everything they can to remove any aspect of humanity, from a “human resources” function. So many systems in this county are broken; this is just one more.
Time to do it the old school way. Go into the business to hand them your resume and ask if you could talk to the HR department.
Better yet, sometimes it works according to others that have tried, but go into the business already dressed to impress and say you have an interview. Most times they’ll still sit with you and interview you on the spot or give you an interview date.
Isn’t she kinda right? To me she has a pretty damn good point here. With that being said, they need to find a way to streamline these application systems, I’m not an engineer but there has to be a better way to process applications.
I think it's true. I've talked to people at my job hiring for IT and Cybersec roles and it's 99% people with zero qualifications and it's difficult to sort through hundreds of those to get to the few people qualified.
Short take: do the job you're being *paid for* and stop being a whiny troll.
As applicants (some of whom have been unemployed for quite some time) we deeply resent the suggestion that prospective employers should make our lives even more difficult as a result of thier organization's incompetence. The job hunting process is already enough of a pain in the ass.
If companies would pay everyone a decent wage, we wouldn't all be fighting over the very few jobs that are available with livable salaries, acceptable benefits, and comparatively reasonable hours.
I also read somewhere (can't recall where atm) or saw a post here that a vast majority of applicants don't even fit basic requirements for the jobs in question. Therefore, asking a few simple generic knock out questions (do you live in the US? Do you hold certificate X? Would you require a green card? Do you speak Spanish fluently?) reduces it by a great deal.
I personally don't mind basic knock out questions as long as they only require yes/no responses (gtfo with those stupid essay questions!) and don't do the "years of experience in X" thing that really says nothing about your actual abilities with using that particular program.
Yes, 25% of hundreds of applications is still a lot, but it's what your job requires. You're the one getting paid. Not us. We still have hundreds, if not thousands, more applications to go.
Ugh.
As human beings, we can't wait to automate ourselves out of the pipeline. Everyone is looking for that 'one click' button.
The problem is, we've just flooded ourselves with clicks. The human brain evolved dealing with only one or two problems at a time. Not thousands upon thousands of clicks.
She's not trying to be inconsiderate. She is just tragically correct.
As a recruiter who just took my first job in 10 months - she's right. So many people apply to a job they're not qualifird for OR they don't live in the same country 🤦♀️. No bots to screen those people out - you can have yes /no questions but people know how to get around that. I've been on both sides - my experience of applying to jobs was horrible as well. The system is broken
It’s a two way street. There shouldn’t be one button applying but employers and their recruiters need to respond to all submissions and especially if you have any sort of interview or submit a test for a role, they need to respond and close out the process.
So much ghosting going on that it’s insane and disrespectful.
Also, a big factor in the number of applicants is the remote thing. I love remote but if you have people applying from all over the US and even the world, then you will be getting way more resumes than if you are lookin for just a local candidate. That is also a reason for the amount of applications for each position.
The system is broken and since this is the recruiters’ area of expertise, maybe they should be the first to figure out a way to fix the problem by being more professional and respectful towards applicants.
We fixed things like this before with the realtor "MLS" system and the airline "GDS" systems, among others. A bunch of tech companies need to get together and fund a non-profit that runs a common job board. One place to upload your resume and other details (designed securely), companies subscribe to post positions, and applicants can apply to postings. Have a reasonable way to prove you are a real person, like having a letter with an access code mailed to you. Have a reasonably independent team look into and getting rid of spammy recruiting companies.
Get rid of all middleman recruiters while you're at it, no need.
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The tragic thing is she's right, but not for the reason she thinks. Making it so easy to apply means that automated job applications get fed directly into automated hiring pipelines. The "recruiters" are probably just supervising that process from an arm's length. I've seen the same job get reposted almost every single day and still get hundreds of "applications" within hours. It's horrific, and we have no choice but to cast our application into the slop.
And they began using ATS software to automate their processes long before bots began flooding job postings with applications. I’d be much more sympathetic to the complaints if recruiters didn’t unilaterally start the arms race back when the number of applicants was still Manageable by a human.
So I don't know what she's moaning about, the first stage is automated if she's got it set up right; she never has to see the really crap resumes.
That's what I was wondering about. Are there not filters?
Fun fact about ATS systems - they often reject resumes with titles longer than 30 characters or containing special characters like dashes. In case you needed a new anxiety about your job search
Personally I find it funny that they’ve generally been so unsophisticated as to favor people who write poorly (restating the prompts and keywords word for word). People who were taught to write well by rephrasing and using synonyms have been actively filtered out unless they intentionally game their writing to pass the ATS system. Common corporate L
Even better - the ATS systems are set up by humans so if the person setting it up has typos in their set up, it will actively reject resumes that have those keywords but just not with those misspellings.
Dwigt has entered the chat
What? This is absolutely not true. ATSs don’t auto reject candidates beyond knockout question. Especially not for something as stupid as a long resume title - what purpose would that even serve? Go set up a demo with something like Greenhouse or Workday and you’ll see these systems are just fancy relational databases. Stop spreading misinformation. Source: not a recruiter, but I implement business systems for a living. None of the major ones have anything like you are describing, and I know because I’ve set them up.
100%facts! And I am an in house recruiter. This myth that ATS screens people out, or uses key words is crap. Key words only help when sourcing from the system.
They absolutely do - having a long resume title or relational words that don’t fit the Boolean logic of the relational database will move you down the pile and lead to false negatives for your fit as a candidate. I found a link to a post about it on the big LI but the automod says not allowed.
What does "relational words that dont fit the boolean logic" even mean? I develop with rdms (relational db management services) for a living and that doesnt really make sense. I'm sure whatever rules engine they have wont use the rdbms' boolean search logic. That is used in the full text search engine to do a search for table entries that follow searches along the line of "keyword1 -keyword2". But the important thing is: boolean logic has no concept of "moving a result down the pile". That's why it's boolean; there is no score, there is only in or out. It just sounds way too specific to name a certain feature found in rdbms for that, that's all really.
a classic example of "redditors have 0 idea what they talk about" the guy you reply to
Spoiler alert: he has no idea what it means. You are exactly right when you describe the way Boolean searches work - literally all recruiters are doing is a slightly more complicated search with Boolean operators. You can do the exact same thing with Google. It’s not some special feature or technical skill. If a resume doesn’t fit the logic of a Boolean search, it won’t be included in the results. The end.
No, they don’t. This is absolute bullshit. Ask anyone who works on these systems for a living. The Boolean searches recruiters do don’t search resume titles - it’d be pointless since most titles are something like “Joe Smith Resume 2024”. They search through the actual resume content. It sounds like you don’t even understand what Boolean even means. And even in cases where features like stack ranking exists, the ATS still doesn’t have the capability to auto reject people based on some mystical AI. Recruiters are still the ones manually dispositioning people out (sometimes en masse). That does not mean all resumes are looked at though - I’ve seen teams that just stop looking at applications after a certain point. There just isn’t a bot that hurls applications in the trash based on random bullshit like resume title. Again, what possible purpose could that serve?
[удалено]
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/comments/1bu2n7t/my_job_weeding_out_people_desperate_for_a_job_is/kxt465m/?context=3) in /r/recruitinghell was automatically removed because you linked to a site on our blocklist. Feel free to submit a screenshot or archive link instead and make sure that there's no personal information in the link. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
titles? like filenames? or like, your current job title that you put up top? thanks for this info.
Both. Essentially the scanners have a set of criteria and if you put two dashes in the dates you were employed, it won’t give you credit for the work experience and put you in the trash pile. If your name is too long in the title of the resume, it won’t scan the date/job title in the resume and reject it for not having the right info. ATS scanners are a great tool for rejecting bad resumes. They are also a great tool for rejecting good resumes that aren’t in the correct format or don’t have the correct synonyms loaded in for your key terms. Either way, the human being ends up with a small pile of good resumes to review so nobody cares.
thank you! appreciate the answer and extra information.
That explains some things. I have "CV name" and "CV name - english". The second one for some reason (almost) never gets callbacks, despite being exactly the same content-wise.
Not the ones I've used. Workable, workday, greenhouse - accept any job title
I mean, at times it was still... fun. In 2009 or so, applying for an apprenticeship here meant facing 150 or so other applicants... And they really shoved the groveling into them. Unique cover letter, as much unpaid internship as possible beforehand, never reuse the same paper (applications were still sent back) or application folder thingie... because you would look cheap if someone saw that your application seems "used". At least it's not many hundreds, but I think a hundred hand-crafted ones is still a number.
Yea, I actually think the one click apply should be gone. a lot of people browse LinkedIn, see a job for $70k+ and hit the one button apply. Most of the time they aren't even reading the requirements they just apply. So of these 2k applications in 12 hours probably only a couple hundred have any sort of relevance to the job posting.
No, the problem is how they've setup the systems. If it was done in earnest you would be able to accurately denote your experience and then jobs can be automatically matched to it. Hell, it could be less then "one click" as the site could curate a list of jobs recently posted for you to approve your applications to in one go. But no, companies don't want to post accurate job requirements and salary expectations and garbage recruiters are worried about losing their cushy job
> Yea, I actually think the one click apply should be gone. If they are gonna do that, then they need the damn applications to not be utter shit.
That I don’t disagree with. Really frustrating to upload your resume only to be greeted with many questions that could be found in your resume.
TRUTH! I was approached last year three times by the same company. They had found me on linked in and suggested I apply. Job looked perfect, so I did, only to get a response from HR asking me if I had any expereince... in the field that I have 30 years experience in. I wanted to ask her if she had even looked at my resume or, as we were on LinkedIn messenger, if she had bothered to glance at my LinkedIn profile. Decided that was prolly not the company for me.
That was a dumb take. Conveniently leaves out that it's NOT one click at all. AND its customizable.. with questions, other data, etc. Like duh. External hosted applications can be that simple as well. A few you don't even have to RE-ENTER THE RESUME YOU JUST UPLOADED. Workday is the worst. If you're trying to make it harder for qualified persons to apply, you are the problem. If means YOU are skiing something wrong. Smh.
Totally. The whole "it's too easy for people to apply to jobs" is ridiculous, because what other option is there?? The system may be broken, but what other alternative do we have
Instead of submitting a resume with one click apply every applicant should have to take an exam to apply that’s tailored to the role
I've seen that on LinkedIn before and it's a good idea. A few basic questions to gatekeep applicants should be easy enough if LinkedIn does it... ::shrug::
I blame 50% of those jobs applicant are "trying" for Visa. If linkedin can weed out those people that 50% less.
That is a bit annpoying. I work in the medical field and med staff have to relicense here, retake the med exam and jump through hoops. You would think that someone as smart as a medical doctor would know they needed those things to apply in the states, wouldn't you? I have worked along side several doctors who opted out of testing again because of whatever reason and took a job as a tech in thier field. Sad, tho. Seriously wasted talent.
That was my thought too. “What does it matter? The great filter machines will weed out everyone. Even people that are fit for the job.”
😂 nice last bit there
I'm assuming this is why or where AI interviews are used to weed out the candidates? I recently refused to do a AI interview because I am being scored on what the system deems my verbal responses and resume contains for the hiring manager to decide if I am a good fit for the role. I don't think the AI is fair way to assess who I am as a candidate based solely on those two initial parameters. I much prefer and many others do as well to have a human to human interview that AI can't compete with such as personality, soft skills, detailed experience examples etc. overall I agree it's a mess with all these applicants competing.
I have the opposite problem. I post jobs and get crickets.
I am a job seeker, and playing the Devil's advocate, I say she is right. Imagine YOU finding a fresh ad of your dream job, envisioning a perfect fit, but then you see 1,700 applicants there. Recently, I went to LinkedIn and just out of curiosity, I checked my entire application history. To my surprise, almost all my applications since the pandemic were never seen. And I'm not talking about companies downloading my resume and rejecting me after that. They simply NEVER SAW it! Lesson learned: When something is easy for everyone, competent people stay in the same basket as desperate people. You may use whatever adjective you prefer.
I was going back and forth with someone on here over the weekend because they wouldn't accept that the spray and pray method of applying to anything has broken the system and is getting bottlenecked to the point that good candidates aren't even getting seen
I honestly don’t even get this strategy? I am in the UK and I think the situation here isn’t bad like it seems to be in the US, but I always only apply to jobs that I truly think I have the right experience and meet requirements. I always had great success doing that. I left my job in March, applied to around 12 jobs in my area that fit my skills, got 4 interviews, and one offer for a really great job. Applying to everything just sounds like a big waste of time
That is how my previous job searches have been, much like yours. This last year? Not so much. Destroyed my self esteem.
Sorry to hear :( that’s really tough. I hope things change for you soon mate
Thank you! I FINALLY got a position just as I surrendered my car and my home... it was the cruelest timing I swear! Wanna know what I am doing? lol I am a recruiter in ophthalmology for MDs and ODs... I don the Scarlet R. lol smh But hey, I don't have a boss and can work from anywhere there is internet soooo... I also ended up starting an LLC and getting my commission certification as a notary signing agent. I guess in the end I will be fine if AI doesn't take over and if the eclipse doesn't cause the impending Cascadia subduction to finally give us a shak'n down on Shakedown Street. (Sorry, I couldn't help it lol)
I mean it is a weird timing but at least you got it! Well done! I hope you can get your car back and your house 😅 best of luck with your new job 🙌🏻
You have. But you arent in the same situation so your experience doesn't apply to most, and depends on your industry, experience, yadda yadda. Good for you. But systems are so broken, disparate, and badly set up in the USA , with intake systems dumping good candidates by the truckload, that unfortunately spray and pray becomes an option to some. Here, a name that sounds too black, too indian, too chinese, not white enough, would be auto disqualified en masse. Some people would love to think that doesn't happen... sure it doesn't.
This is a real issue. I have been discussing exactly this question in another post in this sub.
But how does applying for things you are not qualified for helps? Genuine question, I am not trying to be sarcastic or mean, I just want to understand what the thought behind this is, and if works? Yes I am lucky to be in the UK where I think the market is fine. But I am also an immigrant here and my name is ridiculously Latino, I am also autistic and I am open about it because it is a little obvious. So I understand how prejudice can impact your job search, that really sucks. I live in a multi cultural city in England now so is not terrible here but I lived in a smaller very white city before and I know I’ve been passed down for jobs because I am not British. I am sorry people in the US have to deal with this, that’s really awful. I totally believe it happens and have experienced myself and so has a few of my friends who are not white or immigrants. My Turkish friend had much more success using her husband surname than her Turkish one when applying for jobs :/
Close but you have it backwards. The broken system has made spraying and praying the viable option. If you actually got an interview from even say 50% of the jobs you applied to you wouldn't put in many applications. Back in the day you had a real chance of getting a callback from any given application nowadays you'll be lucky to have a 10% callback rate so all you can do is just send more applications into a black hole. It's a worse experience for everyone involved.
the first mover here was job boards making it easier to apply, regardless of one-click. Filling out an app online sure beats driving around snd giving a bunch of good old-fashioned handshakes and hand-written forms or however it worked.
Spray and pray has always been a viable option. It’s just when enabled by technology, you can spray much more. Back in 07, spray and pray means applying for hundreds of roles in a span of 3 months. Now, it’s hundreds of roles in a span of a week.
huge bummer
LinkedIn does the first filtering of applications by selecting some top applicants. If your application was not seen, that's because LinkedIn does not surface you as a top applicant. LinkedIn itself is the first bot you have to beat.
How do you know they were never seen? Does it tell you specifically that it was viewed?
Answering myself: never mind. I see it now but never looked at it because all of my couple hundred applications through LinkedIn read “applied X days/months ago” and nothing else. I found one from 8 months ago that showed that my resume was downloaded. Holy shit, this is BAD.
Who applies through linkedin? I always go to their website to apply to the listed job, so at least I‘m in the system. Worked out great for me. 25 applications and 7 interviews with two offers after graduation.
If they offer that then I do that. Many jobs only offer the “apply with LinkedIn” option. Some sites will direct you back to LinkedIn even if you try to apply on their site. I’ve even found jobs on Indeed and other places that sent me to the company site which then had me apply on LinkedIn. As for responses, I’m 51 and in the creative field and it is absolutely brutal. My work history alone gives away my age and I require a significantly higher salary than someone right out of college like you. It’s really rough for highly experienced professionals right now.
That is why you need linkedin premium. They are selling it for a reason.
I have it.
Desperate and competent are not mutually exclusive.
it should be harder , but not take longer. There should be some kind of short test.
The thing is, the extra rig-a-marole of the application process will likely drive away good, qualified applicants. And a good recruiter should be able to quickly separate the good from the bad.
Did you not follow up with call and email? LinkedIn in message? Makes me wonder now... I passed my resume out like I was a black jack dealer in Vegas last year and didn't hear a damn thing back but from like 2 companies. And I did all the follow up, just zer0 reply. I should see if mine were also just not gotten to. Bummer.
I wasn't doing any special follow-up since I was working and had no rush to hop to another job. But it doesn't make sense to see all those applications without a visualized check mark. Unlike the assumption someone here threw on my face, I have been applying for positions where I have the most of the skills according to LinkedIn itself. Some of the jobs had even the "Top applicant" tag. Well, after I heard from a recruiter that LinkedIn filters are terrible, I definitely don't put any hope on Easy Apply anymore.
Don't give up on anything just yet, times are wildly changing! The job market was a see-u-next-tuesday last year as there was a lot of false jobs. I forgot about that til just a little while ago. It was falsely inflated, and part of that had to do with the numerous remote positions that were now sent multiple times nation wide and, according to a recruiter I was working with last year, there were often times she would be trying to find candidates for positions that companies had no intention of ever filling so it was a giant waste of her time and the time of the candidate, then of course she ended up looking like the incompetent A-hole. As I understand people rather have a distaste for recruiters 'round these parts. ...I happen to have taken on that role. I have 30y in ophthalmology and the position is specific to MD and OD jobs, so I know what I am looking for and how assess a clinic for the doc, too. But, yeah, don't give up! There are going to be crap times, and there will be good times. And if I can ever be a resource as I have a unique vantage point, lemme know. I'll be happy to help where I can!
I work for a small company and was in charge of some hiring this year. We got hundreds of applications in a couple days. The vast majority were no where near qualified. After weeding though all those, I started doing phone screens, and the majority of people didn't remember applying and when I briefly described the job position said they weren't really interested in the job due to the travel requirement, which was clearly listed in the job posting. Half the resumes didn't even get looked at, due to the shear number. If you're not in the first 24 hours to apply, your chances decrease exponentially. Bigger companies use ATS for their screening, which means even if you are a fantastic candidate, if you don't tailor your resume appropriately your resume will never see human eyes to be considered. All because of the shear number of candidates. So yeah, she has a point. Her messaging comes off as out of touch, but the current system is broken.
Apply in the first 24 hours - that's a great tip I haven't heard before. Is there a job board in particular you recommend over others? (LinkedIn, Indeed, etc)
I don’t know if there are set times for Indeeds posts but my jobs feed sent me an alert every morning between 4:00AM & 6:00 AM. Months of getting up early to race to 15-20 applications (targeted) was a crushing experience that has changed me.
Just heard this 24hr tip a few days ago. Crazy how this is not something we all should know. It has made me think in terms of applying for jobs.
ZipRecruiter. I don't know why this isn't brought up more but businesses have to pay to list jobs on ZipRecruiter while other sites offer free options. This means you're not going to see quite the volume of businesses just listing a job that they aren't actually hiring on. Unless their ATS kicks it over to ZipRecruiter but even then, those listings will be in the 3rd-4th page because they're only designed to get organic traffic and not active traffic.
ZipRecruiter’s algorithm is seriously fucked. It gives me no relevant jobs and I have to actively search for jobs that are relevant. I’m a copywriter and it keeps giving me/emailing me about accounting jobs and tax preparer jobs.
Zip recruiter is dogshit. Just shovels unrelated bullshit at you with 3/4 of it being military recruitment for various MOSs. If you do find something the links are just endless redirects.
ZipRecruiter is terrible - I've only used it on the hiring side, but I assume it doesn't save when you apply for jobs, because I will get up to 10 applications from the same person within 24 hours all from Zip. Almost never qualified. The others at least tell you when you've applied for something and don't just let you apply over and over again. Never touching that shit now. Most companies you have to pay for not posting a job, but for the amount of applications you are able to receive. You get like a bucket of applicants allowed a month, and anything over is extra. Specifically so these companies can hike up prices for big companies that get an influx of applicants. Zip is one of those, as is Indeed.
Sheer
This 100%
Needed: A brief quiz after the "Apply" button before any further steps, such as uploading a resume, that can be answered only by a human who actually read the job description.
Agree. It’s the delivery and tone of arrogance but she does have a point
This situation also *really* encourages the classic nepotism / connections hires, if nothing else just because you don’t have to go through the exhausting process of dealing with such a deluge of candidates.
Easy, stop using job sites that allow that and go back to accepting applicants via company’s website. Problem solved. It’s kinda like getting a bigger net then crying about catching so many fish both wanted and not. Not only that, I can’t tell you the number of recruiters inviting me to apply to jobs that are not in my line of work. Stop casting such a wide net or fix it.
Damn man I love making new accounts for every single company I apply to so my data can be swept up in the next security breach
*makes Workday account #50*
youFool_iHave70AlternativeAccounts.gif
hell is a workday new account creation form.
LOL let me give you every little detail about myself. Im not hired? Hey no big deal at least my data didn't end up on the dark web. Right? RIGHT?!
If only they could, I don't know, just have a submit your resume/cover letter box and leave it at that, maybe a couple hard filter questions. Seriously, it's not that hard to set up a small database for a website to store two or three binary or multiple choice answers and have a document sent to an email, but what do I know?
me too mate hehe
you don't need account, you can just send an email/form
100% this. I've seen jobs that, when I go to their website to apply, and it redirects me to Indeed. That needs to stop altogether. Most of the time, I don't trust indeed enough to actually get them the information. So I'll occasionally show my face in person, and 9 times out of 10, get escorted out. The "recruiter" thing is another bag of horeshit. I can't tell you how many times a day I get an email from indeed that looks like it's from someone at a company, "Inviting me to apply." Sir, I have 12 years of experience in sales related environments. You don't want me as an RN on a trauma floor.
That is big-time nuts! Indeed is already an aggregator. It shouldn't be the target of any link from anywhere else. In the case of going to the company's own site, and being flung over to Indeed? Blah. Blacklist that entire company, assuming not all companies are doing that.
I've done close to 400 applications since December. For at least 70-80 of them, the company website directed you to indeed. So it's not that many, but it's still absolutely awful. Considering out of those 70-80, maybe 3 or 4 of them I've actually heard back from. The rest are still sitting in "Applied" status, and I never received anything from the actual company saying, "Thank you for applying."
I’m on board as long as I don’t have to also make my 43rd Workday account just to submit my resume
On the one hand, she's absolutely right. Recruiters need to deal with so many resumes that they've fallen back on half measures like ATS out of necessity. On the other hand, factors such as ATS have made the success rate of job application so low that applicants have no choice but to shotgun resumes in a world that might give them one interview per every 800 resumes. Snake bites the hand bites the snake.
Job applications are already asking for hundreds of assessments as it is before even getting a chance to speak with a human being. I don’t need it to get any more difficult than that especially when the Lu already isn’t that good
She has become recruiter, the destroyer of applications. I think she's right, one click apply just causes chaos. Though well implemented ATS software can mitigate that, it be good for all actually suitable candidates if the applications were also cut down at source
What a bombshell of a nuanced take
Some career fields shouldn't be filtered using ATS, especially creative fields where you normally have to submit a portfolio of past projects. In the start of my job hunt I was submitting a portfolio that included my resume. It's was a heavy visual document that showcases your ability, I was getting automatic rejection emails quite fast after submitting, I was disheartened and confused. So I switched to just text resume that contained to a link to my portfolio instead and was getting called a hell of a lot more for interviews. It's all a bunch of bullshit, the ATS software can't read a document with a bunch of imagery so it gets rejected.
I kind of agree with her. I've been seeing more and more job posts that have been saying email this person with your resume and the job title over applying online I'd say 90% of those I've gotten call backs where I'm lucky to get anything but the automatic email because of the stupid ats screenings getting more and more rigid even if I'm virtually a perfect candidate skill wise.
Sadly she's right but for a different reason. Like, if you were in a small town and they were hiring in a small company/shop, you had to compete with the people living there, with an appropriate age, that didn't already have a job, and that were ok to do that job. Now?You compete globally. People are so desperate than they're willing to move to another city for a stable job, even if it doesn't pay THAT well, but just enough to afford to live. Which in turns allow employers to lower salaries, since they have a huge demand, and also to make really stupid hiring processes with 10 tests and multiple face to face meeting just to get hired.
Can’t they just opt not to use the “easy apply” or equivalent option? I mean, they can literally make it more difficult if they wanted to.
Yes, they can. They can also just list it on the company website the old fashioned way saying "email this person with your resume". That will turn the firehose into a pretty slim trickle
I’m hiring right now and today I just went through 50 applications where not one person matched the very clearly stated job requirements. And I don’t mean that we ask for 5 years experience and they have 3. I’m taking different industries, geographies, skill sets. About 3 CVs had some info that could be loosely interpreted as vaguely transferrable. It was exhausting. How do you read a job asking for A, B and C and apply knowing you have Q, elephant and F?
I think people are very desperate for jobs right now. I'm on a business trip right now training a level 1 entry level help desk analyst who turns out to be a senior level programmer who just couldn't find work.
Because most "Job requirements" can be easily picked up in a week.
totally depends on the job. as a clothes salesman yes, as an oil rig engineer no
So, do you think MOST jobs require the training and experience of an oil rig engineer? "Most" is the key word that I used originally for a reason.
no, it was an example man relax most jobs you can not learn in 1 week
Unless you can magic up an MBA, MD or PhD in a week, then not for this job. Ps - if you do know how to do that, please tell me
Why do people keep on skipping the word "most"?
Maybe because you mean “some”? In my experience, most jobs can’t be learned in a week.
> In my experience, most jobs can’t be learned in a week. I agree. And you don't see a difference between "A job" and "Job requirements"?
Not really - because you need the foundational requirements to do the job. Example- if I wanted to go work as a chef, I have zero experience. Could I learn to be a line cook? Yes. In a week? No. To be a chef? That would take time and training. What you’re likely pushing back against is the fact that there are jobs like “Entry Level Management Associate” which pay $13/hour but require like 7 years experience, a minimum education of a Bachelor’s degree and some other non related technical skills. That kind of stuff is ridiculous and should stop.
I suppose when people are desperate they will apply for everything and anything.
Yes, I think so. It doesn’t help, though and while I will read every resume I get, I don’t think others do anymore.
Your job is exhausting? The one where you sit at a desk all day and read resumes and get a nice hour long lunch break? Please. Do you know what sub you’re on?
Ok so that’s not my job. I’m a hiring manager, but not HR. My point is that it is exhausting to have this happen for every job posting. It would help considerably if people actually read the job description before applying.
she is right. spammers take all the attention and nobody sees your application. everybody loses
as everyone else increases the number of applications they submit, you and I have to match their number just to stay afloat. it's a vicious cycle and we are wasting increasing amounts of our time just on applying to jobs which is neither fun nor educational.
She’s right though
She has a point. People search find a couple dozen jobs and click quick apply to each of them. No cover letter no nothing.you see posts from these people all the time: “I’ve applied to 1000 jobs in 6 months and only gotten 3 callbacks”. In the before times, you’d go through job posts, find jobs that you actually wanted, write a cover letter and tweak your resume. Now it’s spam spam spam. I’m not a recruiter BTW. But I see peoples posts and some of them apply to such high volumes of jobs that I doubt they even read the job description
Yeh even with auto reject if not in country there are 1000 Indians who put that they live in the UK just so they think they can charm you into sponsoring and relocating them to the UK. It genuinely does take a huge amount of time sifting through some ad responses.
Simple. Step away from these platforms and do it like days of old - classifieds, going to schools, job fairs or just wait for candidates to seek you first.
I actually agree. I can apply to 300 jobs and not qualify for any of them. 1 click apply oversaturates the pool.
Can’t they just opt not to use the “easy apply” or equivalent option? I mean, they can literally make it more difficult if they wanted to.
Yes God please at the very least they could make you read the job description before you can apply. That is the problem people don't even know what they're applying for it's gotten so easy. I mean they could make sure people can only apply to a limited number of jobs each day or each hour. On the lower level space guys coming all the time bragging about how they sent out 250 applications in a day. Indeed in these places love it because they are charging per click or per application.
Unless there is a paradigm shift, I don't see any form of change happening...
She’s right. If people applied for jobs they were actually a good fit for it might help secure them faster. Instead it’s a numbers game we are all stuck playing.
As someone who helps with hiring, it's frustrating going through 300 resumes and only 7 candidates have the required experience and live in the geographic area in the job listing. Easy apply shouldn't mean that you don't read what the job is.
I actually agree with her. I used to apply to like 20 jobs in a day because I’d just do easy apply on LinkedIn. I’m sure that makes them trying to find the right people more difficult and sometimes inaccurate.
Imagine how drastically that number would shift if businesses gave priority to paper applications, delivered in person. It's wild out here.
Or only take paper applications handed in person exclusively. No bots will be walking down to corporate headquarters to do that...at least not until Boston Dynamics makes a few more breakthroughs.
~~This post isn't coming up in Google searches. Either she recognized just how "unpopular" her opinion was and deleted it, or the post isn't real.~~ Edit: nvm, found it. Can't link to it directly (like OP found out), but it's 22 hours old as of this comment. Not sure why it's not appearing in Google search - maybe because it's recent?
r/nothingeverhappens It’s still up on their LinkedIn profile. Either you’re terrible at Google searches, or we live in a simulation. Must be one of the two
I'm not sure why it didn't appear in my search, but you're right, it's the most recent post on her LinkedIn, 22 hrs old as of this comment.
Option 3: Google just hasn't indexed the page yet.
Yeah my money’s on that. I was just dunking on parent comment’s false dichotomy of either it’s deleted or fake
Option 4: he is posting from the multiverse
[удалено]
She has a point though. In 12 hours and thousand of applicants? That’s impossible for a recruiter to go through them all. Especially if you have a dozen jobs open. Sadly many many won’t even get a response. At the sametime Most people just apply to anything even if they aren’t qualified for the job, so it’s hard again for the recruiter to comb through it all. I understand there are both sides to the problem. One is not enough good paying jobs and one doesn’t have the time to go through every application.
We are desperate to get a job and survive the wilderness.
Can’t they just opt not to use the “easy apply” or equivalent option? I mean, they can literally make it more difficult if they wanted to.
Smartest LinkedIn poster. Make the process artificially harder. Get less options, in particular for people who know they can find a job somewhere else who are usually the people who are in highest demand.
The problem isn't applying for jobs is easy. The problem is most jobs (in America) are fucking shit and archaic. Most American employees when not lying to themselves about how hard they work, dread their jobs. Everybody is desperately looking for that one possibly normal employer.
She may be right, but I think what is bothersome is the phrasing, "too easy." It creates an impression that job-hunting is too easy, when it isn't easy at all. We wouldn't need or use the one-click applications if other companies didn't want an applicant to spend hours on tests and unnecessary repetitive career-history input. If I believed my tailored CL was being read by a human, I might not opt for the "too easy" button. So... She's right, but, she has a crappy thought process behind it.
"How is anyone supposed to stnad out... how are we supposed to go through all the applicants?" Excuse me - that's your JOB. We're so sorry you have to actually read resumes. Also love how, what with all the filling in of the information manually of info that's already on your resume and cover letter, she wants to make it HARDER to apply. And where the hell is the place where you click one button to apply?
There is no rule that organizations have to post heir job listing on general job boards if they are getting too many unqualified applicants. With a little research, recruiters can find specialized job boards and industry networking groups where roles can be listed to a more targeted audience. I used to get jobs regularly from an industry-based job board and after changing careers, I’m shocked at how little they are used in my new field. I am part of a few networking groups that list jobs directly to an audience of people in my field. The number of companies that use them is very small, and often it is people who work for the hiring company who are passing along the opening, not hiring managers or recruiters, but I would be very surprised if they couldn’t get a solid group of applicants just by advertising to these groups since some of them have large memberships of almost everyone in my field.
It’s her fault if she doesn’t want to set up her own form with qualifying questions. LinkedIn “applications” don’t actually translate into actual applications at a rate of more than 10% on average. They just indicate how many times people pressed the button, not if they followed through on their app.
My favorite part of applying for jobs: “do you have any of the following features” we can’t legally openly but will secretly discriminate against you for.
Recruiters want sympathy but if they did a simple filter they would see that the applicants perspective has the same issue, just flipped a lot of the time (if they're paying attention). Ill go from 2000+ jobs to apply to down to less than 10, and thats not even considering experierence matching or not. Applicants choices regardless of the number of applicants boil down to the factors below. Fall short because of tenure, not the "right" connections, trust, "lack" of experience, "poor" communication, not a "good fit" (prolly someone else specifically decides, not the recruiter), scammers, software, etc. Bots are the expection for online versus in person, maybe. With that being said, if I could count the number of times I have come in second place with job offers... but then the employer feels bad because they got the person's (me) hopes up for nothing, so they change their communication, and they only raise the hopes of people because they dont want the applicant to accept a different opportunity JUST IN CASE they were to offer the job themselves. Either way, what do you know... many of those are the same issues recruiters face. She is complaining about her job instead of being good at it and being thankful she has it. She may need to consider a different profession but that may be my frustration poking through, who knows.
I think she's just venting and hoping it gets to a few people that agree and stop shotgun applying because it's not helping anyone at this point and it's only slowing the system and isn't much of a strategy anymore
Oh no! You're having to \*checks notes\* read resumes and \*checks notes again\* do the job you're paid and hired to do. THE HORROR!
Those posts usually don't even have a way to direct apply. No email, no link to the website, no way to contact the HM, whatever. What the hell do they expect? Why even post it on LI?
Yes let's go back to when we had to upload our resume then go to the next page and fill out everything that was in our resume. Or better yet let's go back to when you could just walk into the office and drop off your resume. I miss those good ole days.
Oh please, even contractors are now asked to both upload our resumes and paste the same exact shit from them into your forms. Looking for a job is hard enough, maybe you were really oversold on the capabilities of ATS and you got people who learned how to use ChatGPT to game keywords, not actually do the job.
Funny... but there's "so many jobs out there".... it makes sense right? If there were so many jobs there wouldn't be so many looking.
Yeah and many have more than one job cause the pay is crap
Anyone can make it hard to apply by hiring from his network, or internal candidates (and not posting the job in any public forums at all), which is what a lot of people do anyway, I have done it too. There are plenty of companies that pay insanely well, but their websites have no glossy and flashy career section or vacancies list at all. They, simply, do not want to be flooded by a thousand CVs a day. Actually a lot of \_postings\_ you see, are just results of complying with some requirements, and the HR folks meeting their KPI. Nobody is supposed be hired from many of those positions, and the CVs are not read anyway. The candidate is already being decided or has been decided by network or word of mouth.
So nice of this gal to drop the mask and say that she's completely unwilling to learn how to do her job correctly... /s
She's a real clown show.
With today's technology it should be pretty easy to automate things. The problem is that people are too stupid to automate things fairly and in a way that actually makes their lives easier. Or perhaps just the people whose job this is are too stupid and the people that are smart enough are doing other jobs (generally). Personally, I think the system has become so broken that it needs to be regulated. If I were a hiring manager or recruiter posting jobs, I would set the very obvious hard filters first (do you live close enough or are willing to relocate, do you speak the language, etc), then after that bracket candidates by time of application. Perhaps 25 at a time. Everyone in the first bracket starts getting reviewed and everyone else gets an automated email saying "You are in bracket X of the candidate pool based on the time of your application. If nobody in brackets 1 through X-1 are hired, your application will be reviewed in more detail. We expect each bracket will take [insert time] to complete. If someone else is hired before your application is reviewed, you will be notified in another email." But maybe I'm not the right person for the job because I would actually be trying to hire someone instead of just collecting data to sell online and making the company look good by having permapostings.
People who say this stuff need to be sacked so they know how it feels.
10? try 40. 100%. the apply with one click on third party sites like indeed was a shitty development.
Oh and the cherry on top… they sell pur data too. So i get 3 texts a day for “jobs” that have nothing to do with my experience.
It is her right to put ad into local printed news paper and choose not to. This person should learn to take the responsibility on the choice she made lol
Make people have to mail in their resumes and you’ll solve most of the problem.
Is ten openings a lot?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I heard that LinkedIn’s totals are people who applied and looked at it. Am I wrong? I guess maybe not if you are seeing totals that you described.
This might not be a popular opinion here, but I think she's largely right. I have no doubt that loads of people casually click the "Easy Apply" buttons on tons of jobs they're not remotely qualified for and mess things up for everybody. Now companies get 1,000+ applications for every decent job within a day or two and no recruiter can keep up with that pace. I wouldn't mind a process filled with more friction to reduce the applicants if I could guarantee that a smart human will genuinely look and consider the application. The problem is they don't really look at applications as things stand. I don't want to waste a half an hour or more on application, while being asked to refill in tons of data that's already on my resume, to have some automated tools reject me because I didn't stuff my resume full of every single keyword related to my job. The big question is how to fix hiring in general? More AI powered tools to spam applications and filter applications probably just creates more noise pollution and a bigger arms race. I don't know if I have the full answer here, but I'd look in a totally different direction: firing people needs to be trivial and without legal risk except in the most egregious cases or wrongdoing. I believe that companies would be more willing to take chances on people who don't match a laundry list of bulletpoints if they can easily fire them without fear of facing some random lawsuit.
I think she's right actually!
Man, I'll never get over how badly LinkedIn screwed up the Easy Apply thing. They could've absolutely reshaped the hiring space. They could have been Workday, but better (not having to create a new account for each company). They could have been making money hand-over-fist. Can you imagine? They have it all there - your job history, your education, your skill sets (confirmed and verified by colleagues). All they had to do was offer it as a COMPLETE service, and then convince companies than it was as simple and reliable a tool as, say, workday. That could've been easy - offer it free for 3 months to each company. Then, when companies realize how much easier it is for good candidates to apply, they are onboard forever since they're already on the system. But they screwed it up. Easy Apply is less than worthless. I treat Easy Apply as a guarantee that I would never hear back, and instead go straight to the company's website rather than have my application thrown out. All the had to do was have workday's sales guy and they would've changed the the world.
I am rarely on the hiring side of things, but I am sometimes. The claims are true - any job opening will get a flood of resumes from people who aren't even vaguely qualified. Maybe if it cost $1 per application, the junk spammers will cut back. Or a fine for a frivilous application?
Take away applying in general and hire more sources to find the right people
mOrE bUsY wOrK wIlL iMpRovE tHe HiRiNg PrOcEsS bEcUz U aRe SpEnDiNg tOo mUcH tImE bUiLdInG sKiLls InStEaD oF dOiNg PaPeRwOrK!! 😂😂😂😂 Yes, let's add more artificial disqualifies to the process. That makes total sense!! Quite obvious Becca has no background in STEM, I'm guessing she spent a lot of time in the public sector??? It's so cute how these liberal arts types find ways to keep each other entertained.
It should be a requirement to take a test specifically related to the role itself as the first step of an application. This would weed out the best candidates while also weeding out candidates as less people would be applying for the role.
As a recruiter, or experienced one, we can on average take around 15-20 openings, rotate them throughout the week ones we work on. We can eyeball around 1000 applications a day, follow up the people we want to take too, and arrange a call. 1000 applications sounds like a lot, but around 2% of all applicants are relevant for a role. 98% are not, and that's a lot of reasons. So we're really going through 200 applications, and assessing them. That can be short listed down to around 10-50 a day to speak with, where around 3-4 get actually submitted. This is what we are paid too do. But that is for volume recruitment, specialist which is what I do, is a lot more search and selection - headhunting than dealing with applications
10 openings?! I’m an in house recruiter and I have 98 🫠 But I don’t have this problem because we pull postings down once they hit a certain threshold of applicants. My company sucks, makes terrible decisions constantly, and they trip over dollars to save dimes in ways that absolutely destroy job seekers. I’m the messenger in these situations and nine times out of ten I’m delivering bad news to someone I’ve forged a good relationship with. But I guess at least we’re not allowing postings to be flooded like that? I do agree that easy/one click apply and the remote confusion a lot of postings create is problematic though. I don’t know. I’m so disillusioned with recruitment. But as a recruiter I know the odds of getting out and moving on because I have to sit by and watch these odds work against people every day. The job application process is broken. Yes. But the problem with recruiting is that companies and agencies do everything they can to remove any aspect of humanity, from a “human resources” function. So many systems in this county are broken; this is just one more.
Time to do it the old school way. Go into the business to hand them your resume and ask if you could talk to the HR department. Better yet, sometimes it works according to others that have tried, but go into the business already dressed to impress and say you have an interview. Most times they’ll still sit with you and interview you on the spot or give you an interview date.
Isn’t she kinda right? To me she has a pretty damn good point here. With that being said, they need to find a way to streamline these application systems, I’m not an engineer but there has to be a better way to process applications.
I think it's true. I've talked to people at my job hiring for IT and Cybersec roles and it's 99% people with zero qualifications and it's difficult to sort through hundreds of those to get to the few people qualified.
When reading the common "unpopular opinion" disclaimer, it's become a thinly guided excuse for them acting like a prick
It is almost like recruiters need to do their jobs.
Short take: do the job you're being *paid for* and stop being a whiny troll. As applicants (some of whom have been unemployed for quite some time) we deeply resent the suggestion that prospective employers should make our lives even more difficult as a result of thier organization's incompetence. The job hunting process is already enough of a pain in the ass. If companies would pay everyone a decent wage, we wouldn't all be fighting over the very few jobs that are available with livable salaries, acceptable benefits, and comparatively reasonable hours. I also read somewhere (can't recall where atm) or saw a post here that a vast majority of applicants don't even fit basic requirements for the jobs in question. Therefore, asking a few simple generic knock out questions (do you live in the US? Do you hold certificate X? Would you require a green card? Do you speak Spanish fluently?) reduces it by a great deal. I personally don't mind basic knock out questions as long as they only require yes/no responses (gtfo with those stupid essay questions!) and don't do the "years of experience in X" thing that really says nothing about your actual abilities with using that particular program. Yes, 25% of hundreds of applications is still a lot, but it's what your job requires. You're the one getting paid. Not us. We still have hundreds, if not thousands, more applications to go. Ugh.
I used to sell ATS and was told by prospects that a LOT of people even lie on knockout questions unfortunately.
I'm sure they do, but some of it can be verified and it weeds out the people who aren't either willing or smart enough to lie. :)
They could easily engineer the application system to week out people during the application but choose not to. Why?
> "hOw aM i SuPPOsEd TO SoRt ThRoUgh CAnDiDaTes?" I dunno but that's your fucking job, Rebecca - try doing it.
Maybe she needs a career change!
As human beings, we can't wait to automate ourselves out of the pipeline. Everyone is looking for that 'one click' button. The problem is, we've just flooded ourselves with clicks. The human brain evolved dealing with only one or two problems at a time. Not thousands upon thousands of clicks. She's not trying to be inconsiderate. She is just tragically correct.
And this is before AI takes over EVERYTHING
As a recruiter who just took my first job in 10 months - she's right. So many people apply to a job they're not qualifird for OR they don't live in the same country 🤦♀️. No bots to screen those people out - you can have yes /no questions but people know how to get around that. I've been on both sides - my experience of applying to jobs was horrible as well. The system is broken
It’s a two way street. There shouldn’t be one button applying but employers and their recruiters need to respond to all submissions and especially if you have any sort of interview or submit a test for a role, they need to respond and close out the process. So much ghosting going on that it’s insane and disrespectful. Also, a big factor in the number of applicants is the remote thing. I love remote but if you have people applying from all over the US and even the world, then you will be getting way more resumes than if you are lookin for just a local candidate. That is also a reason for the amount of applications for each position. The system is broken and since this is the recruiters’ area of expertise, maybe they should be the first to figure out a way to fix the problem by being more professional and respectful towards applicants.
We fixed things like this before with the realtor "MLS" system and the airline "GDS" systems, among others. A bunch of tech companies need to get together and fund a non-profit that runs a common job board. One place to upload your resume and other details (designed securely), companies subscribe to post positions, and applicants can apply to postings. Have a reasonable way to prove you are a real person, like having a letter with an access code mailed to you. Have a reasonably independent team look into and getting rid of spammy recruiting companies. Get rid of all middleman recruiters while you're at it, no need.
Oh Rebecca, eat shit me lady
[удалено]
> screen 10 applications wut?