>It seems unfair to penalize people for playing the game and attempting to maximize their chances for success. It forces people to make a choice where they're effectively rolling the dice as to what the best course of action is -- either they optimize for the reality that resumes are largely computer screened, or they optimize for humans hoping that it's not. I don't think you should blame people for optimizing for what is likely the most common scenario.

At first, I disagreed with you because I assumed if Chip took the time to write this post, she must be linking it or at least making it clear from the job postings. I just checked the job postings[0, 1], and they never tell the candidate that a co-founder reads every application personally nor give any indication that they're handling applications with more care than the average company (and the average company treats candidates like garbage).

So, I agree. If you don't tell candidates that you're unique in the way that you process applications, you can't expect candidates to approach you differently than they approach most employers, who reward keyword stuffing.

I have a similar hiring process to the author, but I spell out in my job posting that I, the founder, am reading every application personally.[2]

[0] https://jobs.lever.co/claypot/7b38b49f-baa4-42b6-a58f-bab653...

[1] https://jobs.lever.co/claypot/9c6fedbf-3c91-4a48-98b9-467d00...

[2] https://tinypilotkvm.com/jobs/support-engineer