I've built an app that gathers remote jobs and on-site jobs (mostly software engineering / tech jobs) directly from company websites. Features are built for job seekers (not employers). If interested see my HN profile
I was out of the workforce for two years or so trying to develop my own thing and had maxxed out my HELOC and was getting tough love from my wife and son, rolled my car, was really at rock bottom.
I built myself an intelligent agent (circa 2018) that is like an applicant tracking system in that it can ingest lots of applications and categorize them together with me, maintain a workflow, etc. Got my first interview with an AI company in a week, my wife was skeptical, but I aced it because boy did I have a good story to tell.
That software has been through some rewrites and revisions and now I use it as an RSS reader and as an "image sorter", boy was it fun to be viewing and sorting images in it with three huge windows with my Meta Quest 3 last night.
I gave up running a community job board because the jobs that kept coming up on LinkedIn etc over and over just seemed fake. Eventually I said I’d only share what I knew was real because I knew the team directly.
One signal could be actual social shares by hiring managers / team members. This (like anything) could be gamed. So I think other signals would have to be considered. Maybe the employers reputation or information from actual developers.
1. Fix filtering/search systems so they're better at identifying relevant technologies and jobs. The amount of times I've searched for say, 'React Developer' roles and gotten jobs in C++ or .NET or Java is surprisingly high. Not even ones with React in the description, just the most random stuff possible. Same with the 'top applicant' suggestions on LinkedIn, which seem to be tailor made to throw anything at the wall, no matter the lack of relevance.
So having those systems actually work (and use things like skills and keywords to find relevant positions) would be a godsend.
2. Better moderation against ghost jobs, scams, etc. Places like Indeed and LinkedIn are filled with roles that come up month after month for years, and offers from people that aren't associated with the relevant company in the slightest or who are tricking people into downloading malware. There should be better systems for enforcing good behaviour here, and an attempt at verifying the situation if a job is being relisted for years on end.
I see a lot of conflict between the way most people hire and the goal of hiring. If you see hiring as a funnel that people go into and mostly get rejected you can get really good at the rejecting when it is the accepting that is necessary.
Recruiters are maligned by many but a recruiter has an incentive to get you hired so a good recruiter is your best wingman.
I think the average job seeker makes numerous silly mistakes in the process, particularly in the the interview stage. If you can just avoid these mistakes you perform above your level because most people perform below their level.
I went from being terrified of job interviews to sometimes signing up for one because I want to know what people are doing, not because I need the job.
You have said this a couple times in the last couple days, but the key difference, again, is that recruiters are not incentivized to get you hired. They are incentivized to get someone hired. The difference between "you" and "someone" is exactly where the problems come in. Unless you are directly paying them, they really have no incentive specific to you as an individual.
So yes, you both win if you can get work done for them. But they also win if they hire anyone else at all who can get work done for them. They always win. You only sometimes do.
As with most things, context matters. Right now, recruiting us not broken when viewed from an employer point of view. There's a glut of programmers on the market and it's relatively easy to fill a post.
Of course there are a lot more unemployed programmers than posts, so from the unemployed programmer point of view it seems broken.
5 years ago, and presumably in a couple years time, the equation might be reversed. Then it will be employers claiming recruitment is broken - because they can't find suitable candidates.
I would suggest that recruiting is not broken in either context. The root problem is the FANG type companies that ho through massive hiring and firing cycles. This instability in the market leads to wild swings in supply and demand.
As long as these companies behave like this, the problem will remain. You can fix it for yourself by getting a boring job at a non-FANG (ideally in the part of the cycle when developers are scarce. You will get a lot less money than a FANG job, but your job security will be much higher.
In a down cycle (like now) boring jobs at small companies are hard to get (they're a lot less common) but that's the place uou want to end up in during the next up-cycle.
Getting off the FANG treadmill is how you "fix recruitment" at least for yourself.
"The only way to win is not to play"
(And if you recognize that quote you're likely old enough to have seen this cycle many times.)
1: Job listings generally correlate to jobs that can't be filled through word of mouth. [0]
2: Job applicants generally correlate to candidates who cannot find a job through word of mouth.
+ Job search works about as well as it can.
1. Today it is easy for people to hear about jobs that they simply won't get and would never have heard about in the past for that reason.
2. Today for companies there is no direct expense associated with listing a job (just automatically file applications in a database). In the past job listings in publications cost meaningful money.
+ No amount of scraping is going to result in significantly better job listings.
+ No features are going to result in significantly more hireable candidates.
Good luck.
[0]: For the sake of simplicity I place non-existent jobs in this category even if one could make a mathematical argument to the contrary.
Unless you get into top places early in your career, your network is severely limited. Besides location, it tends to reflect a particular class and level of achievement.
I have gotten several cold call jobs that were life changing and put my in touch with completely different groups. And frankly staying around my early peers would have been career limiting.
What do you think about this experience? Is the answer that scoring a quality network early invaluable?
0. That specific riff is usually in response to people who are unemployed, not finding work, and asking what to try. It is both harder than hoping to get lucky and often more likely to result in a job.
1. Taking cold calls from recruiters is networking. Some people naturally network. Some people ignore recruiters. Some people abuse them and in some workplaces it is a competitive sport.
2. Being born into existing networks is an ordinary path for access to good first jobs.
3. There’s no upside to burning bridges with early peers. They probably get potentially life changing cold calls too. And the judgements of our youth are made in the absence of experience…that older coworker who was focused on family might make a good recommendation at a later stage of your life.
And those people with more schmoozing skill than technical skill are likely to wind up in better positions they are unqualified for, and maybe at a place you want to work someday. They will know who to call.
4. The young tend to get more benefit of the doubt.
5. In general if you are the kind of person other people want to work with it is easier to find work. If you are the opposite type of person, it will be increasingly harder to find work the older you get.
6. My GP comment is an extension of Dan Luu’s discussion of an internet-famous blog post by Joel Spolsky. https://danluu.com/hiring-lemons/
> There’s no upside to burning bridges with early peers
I completely agree. I am still friends, I just don’t want to work at the same company :)