How much do job applicants get paid to apply for jobs? How much effort do you expect them to put in, unpaid, to kiss your butt, specifically, when there are hundreds of companies that are just like yours? Many of those companies will simply ghost the applicants that put in extra effort to tailor the heck out of their resumes. There is no expected payoff for tailoring until after the company actually makes contact, using a real person, and by then you're already interviewing.
It would seem then that the best solution for the applicant is to create a program that reads in an advertised job posting and automatically tailors the base resume to it, so it looks like they put in effort for each company, but actually just did the work once and used the automated solution for everybody. That sounds like more fun than hand-tailoring resumes, anyway.
Given that none of us get paid to look good for potential employers, what sort of reciprocal effort does your company put in to tailor its recruiting to specific applicants? Are you saying that companies who don't actively recruit specific individuals from leads will likewise be overly passive when it comes to retention? Because that... seems accurate.
All you really know from an untailored resume is that the applicant didn't see tailoring to your company as worth the effort.
I would definitely agree for "How much do job applicants get paid to apply for jobs?", not just with this, also with LinkedIn Job Seeker, and other automated tools "to build kickass resume". Expect tips not subscription.
You should ensure your HN username doesnt show up with a background check on a google search because when I do that and I see comments like this you dont get a job.
Really? Are you interviewing for positions in your church, or early learning center?
Because if you screen people out because they use colloquialisms like "kissing butt" in amongst an otherwise professional web post, to be honest that doesn't sound like a fun place to work.
Would you care to mention the name of the company? I, and probably an insignificant handful of other unsuitable candidates, would likely benefit from never applying to work there. And I wouldn't want to waste your time, of course. Cyberstalking and doxxing sounds like a lot of work, especially if it's a rejection-only signal.
Interviewing and hiring is very important work, and your company is depending on you for its future. Six people in one week is huge. The people you hire are lucky to work at a place that has so few problems finding talent.
I wonder, though... Do you think that the nature of your work role has created a bias towards the recruiters and interviewers over the interests of the candidates? Or that it might be an abuse of your hiring authority to threaten a pseudoanonymous person on the internet with a permanent, pre-emptive no-hire status, over comments that are not obviously offensive, whose content is only objectionable due to disagreeing with something you said? As someone who hires, do you feel this is appropriate?
It would seem then that the best solution for the applicant is to create a program that reads in an advertised job posting and automatically tailors the base resume to it, so it looks like they put in effort for each company, but actually just did the work once and used the automated solution for everybody. That sounds like more fun than hand-tailoring resumes, anyway.
Given that none of us get paid to look good for potential employers, what sort of reciprocal effort does your company put in to tailor its recruiting to specific applicants? Are you saying that companies who don't actively recruit specific individuals from leads will likewise be overly passive when it comes to retention? Because that... seems accurate.
All you really know from an untailored resume is that the applicant didn't see tailoring to your company as worth the effort.