Any feedback on how to make resumes more relevant is very welcome. That is an area I would love to improve.
To get past HR load up on recent buzzwords but tailor the resume to suit the job is the #1 thing I look for.
Any hint of not putting in the effort and I assume that is your work style.
No way I want someone who cant put in the effort to get the job. You know they will put in less when they do get it.
Users of your tool I would avoid as I want someone who is lazy but works really hard at it :)
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.
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.
If you have time to research hr usernames how many resumes are you really getting through in a week?
I interview for the company on a weekly basis
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?
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.
The effort in the process shows how much they are or are not willing to work.
Perhaps if we charged folks for the time they waste it would fix that?
Would you be willing to pay 500/hr to interview ( close estimate to actual costs the company incurs )