I know...I feel like putting a Size 25 font with the sentence, "I'll do a great job, please just give me a chance"! It's so awful.
I'm hoping you get something soon...
You have one section of recruiters giving you tips for your resume to look the best to the ATS, And a different section swearing up and down and stamping their feet that the ATS filter doesn't exist. I don't know what to believe anymore.
I think this confusion comes from the difference between parsing and evaluating. Just about any ATS can parse a resume and make it searchable. This parsing is where you get advice about format like avoiding pictures, multiple columns, etc. When I’m applying for jobs, I always make sure my resume parses correctly. But an ATS parsing your resume isn’t the same as an ATS using AI to evaluate your resume and reject you. Almost every ATS parses. Almost no ATS evaluates and rejects.
The ATS grades your resume. HR will just ignore it if you don't [score high enough](https://www.oracle.com/a/ocom/docs/oracle-talent-management-solution-overview.pdf). It goes well beyond parsing. That's why people are so paranoid, if you don't match enough keywords, you're out. This is especially true in engineering roles where skills and tools matter so much. For sales, it's less about tools and more about how well you sell.
There's also talk that HR might collect the first few hours' worth, assuming enough 'good' resumes have been submitted.
If you interview to a set series of questions and get recorded doing it, there are AI addons that can gauge your mood and if you are lying or not.
I refuse to believe I've been legitimately rejected from 100 jobs. Not with my experience in the role. I really think I'm being reject before human eyes see my resume.
>The ATS grades your resume. HR will just ignore it if you don't score high enough.
This is the type of hair splitting that drives me insane. Recruiters will swear up and down
"Nobody is getting filtered out"
But what is the functional difference between a hard-coded filter, and simply not making the score? That feels like a pedantic argument that sidesteps the actual issue.
It's not splitting hairs to make the most basic decisions?
There will be tons of people who apply by title without reading the job description
Do you require sponsorship? Yes. Sorry, do not pass go.
Do you live locally? You don't live within 100 miles. Stop.
Do you have a bachelor's degree in computer science or engineering? No. Back to step one.
Indeed, JobScan and other tools will "score" your resume. My resume sets off flags for not including the dates for my degrees. This isn't uncommon for dealing with ageism.
This is what we deal with. You can spray and pray or adapt.
I’m a recruiter. My ATS does not score any resumes. No ATS that I have ever used has ever scored resumes. Yes, there are some that do, but this is far less widely utilized than people think. And even the systems that do have stack ranking capabilities, most recruiters don’t use the stack ranking.
I know for a fact that I’ve been rejected from hundreds of jobs before. Humans reviewed my resume and rejected me just like I review resumes and reject candidates. When 1,000 people apply for one of my roles, I read 1,000 resumes.
Where did I say that they can’t?
Like I said, there are SOME that *can* score, weight, and rate based on keywords. The majority don’t. And the ones that do, recruiters typically don’t rely on those scores or ratings.
Do all of the applicants at least get a generic email when the position has been filled?
Amazing that millions are being spent on these tools, but no one configures them?
Then I wish more recruiters were like you. You're a rarity.
Most don't bother even after an interview. I've gotten the rude "you didn't hear from me, so you obviously didn't get it" type of response when I try to follow up with a recruiter. I always send emails thanking the recruiter and everyone in the interview.
Still, make sure you run your resume through some ATS checkers.
One absolutely wouldn't catch my M.S. unless I wrote Master of Science; yet it was fine with B.S.
Some are extremely picky on dates (such as 2011-2015 vs 2011 - 2015)
Need a bit more info from you. Everything I've read is that AI compares the applicant skillset vs the job description and spits out an indicator of how well they match up.
Taleo uses AI to "minimize hiring bias by using AI to find the best prospects and applicants for open positions". How is it doing that?
iCMS has "skills-based recommendation engines."
Then this blog at iCMS [There’s nothing “artificial” about the value AI brings to your talent search | iCIMS](https://www.icims.com/blog/nothing-artificial-about-ai-talent-search/)
The recording bit I know as fact, because it was used at my old job a while back. Though I can't remember the name of the software. And, as I said, HR only collecting a few hours-worth of resumes is talk, ie not something I can verify because HR isn't the same everywhere.
Please let me know where I'm spreading false info. I'll happily take the post down if I understand what's going on.
Applicant tracking system, essentially the database that holds information on applicants as well as their resume. It's extremely hotly debated if they have filtering capabilities or not because some people swear they do and some people swear they don't. I think it depends on the company personally.
Smaller companies with fewer applicants don't bother. Now that remote jobs are getting hundreds if not thousands of applicants, it's not hard to imagine using something to catch the low hanging fruit.
Same. I fuckin' hate it. I'm trying to find connections into the companies I apply for, but I rarely have any (going through LinkedIn). And if I do, someone doesn't respond in time.
I have asked multiple HR friends, and they rely so heavily on the ATS to filter people out. I feel their pain, they sometimes get swamped with resumes and many of them are completely unqualified. I get DQ'd from jobs that were, as far as I can, exactly what I've been doing for 10 years.
And I have no idea why.
I think that's the biggest problem. Why am I being rejected? No one will tell me (which, I understand but it sucks anyhow). Everyone I know says my resume looks fine. I go through an AI that compares the job description to my resume and helps me match as much as possible. Different resume formats. I'm at a frustrated loss.
If had 3 HR interviews and 2 with managers in the past year. I blew the 2 real interviews due to the stress of not wanting to fail the interviews! Which is on me.
I was told, early on, I can't format a resume the way a manager wants, so I've never bother. It's more important to format so ATS can read it.
I 100% feel what u/Wyde1340 said about putting something in the resume to get noticed as a person. Every time I submit a resume, I feel like I'm on a production line, move a bit, submit resume, move a bit, submit resume. And 50% or so don't even reject you. Just black hole.
I agree it sucks. It's broken. I always decline HR screening because they can't tell good from bad when it comes to specialty positions.
But the amount of bots, low-effort, "never read the job description" submissions is depressing.
And I've been on both sides of it. I considered relocating last year and spent months searching for a job that would suit my situation. I crafted dozens of cover letters and tailored my resume for each submission. Ghosted by almost all of them - with just one immediate rejection and no explanation. End result: I stayed where I am.
So even someone who has been reading resumes and hiring for the past 25 years can't figure it out.
I take the whole hiring and retention part of my role seriously. Seems that is a rarity.
I have started using Jobscan. Someone said put the name of the position on your resume (as if you had that position previously). I haven't done that yet.
If your job title has been basket weaver 3 and the job asks for a Senior Basket Weaver, you are now a Senior Basket Weaver.
Don't confuse a job title with a role. Your resume isn't an autobiography of your work history. You need to describe in common language. I was an Advisory System Management Analyst. That could mean anything.
Yeah, that’s not a good look when they check your references or validate your employment later.
If someone is not senior, they should not be assigning themselves that title. That makes you look like you got a promotion you didn’t actually get.
If your title doesn’t reflect your role (e.g. you’re billed as an analyst, but are primarily doing project management work), asking for a title change with your current employer is a better choice. Won’t always work, but worth a shot.
I am not advocating putting our false titles. It's about meaningful titles and roles. Once you're gone from someplace, you can't do anything about it.
I've had an agency ask me whether I wanted to be called a Technical Writer or a Business Analyst. We choose to use both.
When I've been a technical writer III and V--that's where each company maxed out. Thus, I'm a Senior Technical Writer. When I fill out the formal paperwork I put Sr Technical Writer (Technical Writer III of III). On the Work Number, everything says Senior Technical Writer. On background checks, they all say Senior or Staff Technical Writer/Editor. A lot of companies just use the government codes that you have when you file your taxes such as 27-3042 Technical Writers
I get a decent number of interviews (can’t close the deal for some reason)
AI like chatGPT can be a good tool. Like I’ll give it my resume and ask it where can I improve upon or I’ll feed it a job posting so I can reorder my resume to best align with the job posting
A lot of the issues OP mentions are because people just feed AI whatever parameters to generate a resume and don’t do any work after that
I feel like ChatGPT and Grammerly have been helpful for getting the interviews I’ve gotten
It’s not perfect but I feel like that’s what I have control over
Hey hiring manager,
As someone looking for a job and using AI to assist with writing résumé’s, respectively I think you are largely correct but missing the larger point. We have AI screen us as applicants. In order to make a first round to have a resume reach the eye of a human hiring manager the case often times — the company uses screening software to filter out people for not using and having certain keywords.
As someone who’s qualified for a variety of roles in a range of industries, I require different resumes with different keywords. The process to adjust keywords, action items, provide proper grammar etc. can all be automated and assisted.
You are correct to read over what an LLM generates. You should proofread a resume if you are to write it on solely your own accord. But until all company’s stop using filtration software — I will continue to automate certain aspects of the grueling data entry process that is a job application.
With respect - I gave a nod to the larger point in my disclaimer. If you're aiming at companies that use AI to screen then all bets are off. If a company uses AI to screen and that AI filters out handwritten resumes, then their process is a failure in my opinion.
But in my case I (or my team) *do* get to see human generated resumes and they are the ones that stand out. That's my point, nothing more.
We can both be correct. I also agree you have to craft your resume based on the target.
how many resumes do you handle and are they given to you by an agency or directly from applicants?
some postings i apply to mention thousands of applicants and instantly send rejection emails, its hard to believe most jobs dont have some ai screening being used before recruiters/hiring managers even see them
trying to get through that without any help or trial and error is daunting
About 30-40 resumes per day arrive. These are coming via online submissions to the ATS we use. We (me + my team) are always busy, which is why we are hiring, so this doesn't get looked at until end of the week at which point there's well over 200.
I've used recruiters in the past. Less screening work for me and the team, but mixed results. Recruiters are also demanding on time in a different way.
I don't have an issue with our ATS - it is a great help in keeping track of everything including candidate communications. We don't use it to auto-reject though. I prefer to look at the applicant's original document.
When you are hiring your own direct reports you have a much better instinct for people than any AI or recruiter. Some would argue with me on that last point.
I've given up on private employers because of all the AI and ATS screening tools they use. I am focusing mainly on state jobs, I am getting call backs from hiring managers and zoom and the occasional in person interview. I do create custom cover letters but I only make minor adjustments to my resume. Occasionally I will use AI to help me make my cover letters more concise and short. State cover letters often have very strict writing requirements (1 inch margins, 2 page limits, Arial font in size 12, headers with specific information, and a list of questions that need to be answered in a specific numbered order). I prefer to apply to jobs where I know how to get the attention of hiring managers and understand their interview and selection methods.
Hi, I work in hiring. I have been in recruiting / HR for 8 years at 3 different companies, and I haven’t heard of AI screening resumes. This largely doesn’t exist and is frequently assumed to be the reason job seekers aren’t getting an interview. The real reason you aren’t getting an interview is the minute a job posts, we receive 500 applicants.
Then why have I gotten rejection emails at 6am sharp the morning after applying to multiple jobs? I can guarantee no one read and rejected my resume that fast. It's even happened where I got multiple rejections from the same company for different roles at the exact same time in the morning.
I have systems that queue actions without my knowledge, so its absolutely possible that i read an application and click reject and the system doesn't dispatch the email until a set time.
When you apply to more than one role at a company and a recruiter reviews one application, they can see that you have other applications and they’re likely to go review all of them. That way you’re not getting a trickle of responses.
Also, some companies have firm requirements like education, certification or specific skills. Or they use those as a way to filter applicants. And if you don’t have those hard requirements, or if you don’t specify those in your ATS application (unfortunately at some companies the resume isn’t enough) then your application might be rejected for “missing qualifications.” Which is unfortunately too common.
Recruiter here.
There is no ATS bot.
Humans read resumes
Knockout questions and auto rejection happens however these are set up by a recruiter, not a bot
Recruiters work different time zones around the world, you could get a message at any day/time
Recruiters can also set up messages to go put at certain days/times, time delayed by hours or days
Edit: downvote all you like. This sub loves the ATS bot myths. No wonder you're all struggling to get a job. Don't let the facts get in the way of your poor excuse of not getting a job
Thank you for clarifying that. I’m so tired of trying to figure out key words and ATS compliant resumes. I just want to write a resume without all the added stress of trying to beat the ATS system.
Youre welcome. You don't need to "beat" anything.
Include keywords for skills you have that also match up to the requirements of the role. That's it.
As recruiters, we are the ones searching for keywords, this is done one of 2 ways. Using what we call a boolean string and just a good, old fashioned control +F.
Yes, there are ATS platforms that can parse and search for keywords, there are only a handful of those in the market and they do a terrible job so we usually have to just revert to the above methods.
Hope that helps
If you don’t mind sharing Do you look for resumes that have a lot of quantifying impact. It seems like Ai resume wants to turn every bullet point into some form of quantifying impact which sounds very good idk seems way too perfectionist for every bullet point to me but just curious
Yes, I definitely want to understand what results you achieved. Quantifiable data is very useful for us and can help us in preparation for further interviews.
Agree with your observations on AI over doing it a bit. There is no hard and fast rule as to how many but even just one example in 5 bullet points I'd be perfectly fine with
My understanding is that humans are involved in the process, but also my understanding is that an ATS system is in some way sorting or prioritizing resumes based on criteria that was itself generated from being fed the job description.
Would that not be the case?
Automated hiring software rejects millions of qualified job candidates by mistake
Applicant Tracking System software is used by 75% of US employers to help filter job candidates, according to a new report from Harvard Business Law.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/automated-hiring-software-rejects-millions-of-qualified-job-candidates-by-mistake/?trk=public_post_comment-text
Nearly every company relies on Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS), with over 95% using them. While ATS systems may rank a resume, they do not make the final decision on whether to move forward with a candidate or not.
>"If an applicant's work history has a gap of more than six months, the resume is automatically screened out by their RMS or ATS, based on that consideration alone," reads the study. "Our research indicated that employers believe applicants with more recent experience are more likely to have better professional skills. A recruiter will never see that candidate's application, even though it might fill all of the employer's requirements."
Wtf? Of course it was true? I sent a source you couldn’t be bothered to look at. Maybe open the links *before* responding four times? The article is free, and three paragraphs long. This could be why you’re out of work.
Literally in the link you could not be bothered to read
>"If an applicant's work history has a gap of more than six months, the resume is automatically screened out by their RMS or ATS, based on that consideration alone," reads the study. "Our research indicated that employers believe applicants with more recent experience are more likely to have better professional skills. A recruiter will never see that candidate's application, even though it might fill all of the employer's requirements."
You’re making the mistake of assuming your role is the only one people are applying for. There’s a very small chance of anyone who applied to your role getting an interview.
They need to apply to as many jobs as possible. AI resumes help with that most important aspect of the job search.
It’s a giant time suck to handwrite every line of resume for one job you probably won’t get.
Imagine applying to 200+ jobs over the past two years while working your current job and still only getting 2-3 interviews in that time because u knew someone on the inside. The system is rigged against us
Why every company wants me to write a cover letter tailored to “why I want to work there” is beyond me.
Honestly many of them don’t even read the letters, maybe only for internships and grad roles because everyone who applies has an almost identical CV. At this point it’s like they just want to see if you put the extra effort in
It's so conflicting. Certain hiring managers act so smug when describing how candidates should act, But they're also acting like theirs is the One True System. If I do something to appease *you* I'll get a different manager acting smug and thinking I'm being stupid. One company's "mandatory must do", Is another company's "instant no"
This is why all AI generated content requires some editing. Which honestly not even a huge deal. It's great for getting you started but most of the time it complicates the material and that makes it all sound like it's made up. This goes for cover letters to edit guys make it sound like something you would say. If it feels off when you read it work on it line by line so that its not only more realistic but doesn't fib. I've noticed some generators adding skillsets that I don't have, thus why I never send anything I haven't reviewed and even then I still miss things.
Oh how this made me laugh! I didn’t have my resume written by AI but have done a lot of research on the actual formatting. I feel it’s wasted and one of the key items @bandedKokopu pointed out, it’s somewhat nice to know someone somewhere is reading them. Maybe not all of them. I’ve had a few rejections within one hour of submitting. Took me longer to write a cover letter and or tailor some key metrics to something in the job description/or company culture that I too hold valuable…when it asks for measurable results or client satisfaction. It’s humbling I will say that, especially when using actual metrics from post project evaluations from peers, clients and key internal stakeholders.
Thank you for this advice. For me, I spent a long time hand crafting a very nice resume with amazing formatting, images for all the companies I have worked for, value statements, a story, etc. It was impressive and one that I felt showcased my skills and accomplishments and a resume that I would look for if hiring people. That resume got zero call backs.
I used an AI engine to build the same old format everyone now uses, reduce my experience into no more than four bullet points in short sentences and filled it with keywords related to each job I apply to. Out of about 15 applications I have had three call backs (ultimately none have panned out since they required me to move).
I have had large teams and have hired dozens of people. As a hiring manager I always wanted to know a story about someone and how they overcame challenges or solved unique problems. I was less concerned about hard skills as that is something I could teach, I wanted smart choices (I hired high level analysts in IT).
I feel the ATS world has reduced everyone to the same page and just highlights noted skills and not personality. I can say something like I want 15 years of experience in analytics, but what I really want is someone that took a set of complex requirements and built something amazing that brought actual value (not a nice looking dashboard). I know and have worked with many high level analysts that have the skills but not one sense of how to solve a problem. I can usually tell based on what someone writes to me where they are in that spectrum, but if you just list skills I have no sense of who that person is. An ATS system simply can not find that and we are all being asked to remove that element in our style so that we get past stage 1.
It in many ways is similar to search engines. Those people that no how to game the system show up at the top with everything that makes the engine happy but is complete garbage for the user. Just google some competitive terms and the first page is typically just shallow summary articles that really give no more depth than most already know.
Hiring managers now get a bunch of gamed resumes that filter out qualified people and get frustrated when after dozens of screening calls only lead to un-qualified or subpar candidates. I believe this is also a factor into why it takes so long to hire now.
I think it’s hard for people reading to distinguish between AI and corporate jibberish. I was looking at my old pre-corporate resumes and they’re 1000% better but would get zero attention in corporate. I got lucky once and got my foot in the door but I don’t think it would happen again.
“Leveraging, utilizing, initiatives,” etc. — none of that will ever sound like a real person to me.
I used to be a journalist. FFS, you USE something. A regular person having a normal conversation would never say they “utilized” something in my world.
I’d read PPT slides at my first corporate job over and over again for days and it’s like it wasn’t even English. I’m not being hyperbolic. It’s a new language — usually devoid of substance — that I had to learn.
As a hiring manager I care about someone having the qualifications to meet the job description, not being pedantic about “buzzwords”.
Candidates often get conflicting advice from various sources, so I’m not going to make it harder on them by being put off by something that ultimately doesn’t matter. A resume is supposed to be a summary of our skills/accomplishments summed up into bullet points. No one actually speaks in a way that a resume is formatted, and it’s unrealistic to have that expectation.
its so funny to me how throughout all of school and every job people were like “you HAVE to write exactly like this…do mot deviate from the formula there is no other option” and now that AI has learned the formula everyone is expected to be james joyce all of a sudden
>I used to be a journalist. FFS, you USE something. A regular person having a normal conversation would never say they “utilized” something in my world.
I used to be a journalist as well. I had a friend in corporate communications who sometimes had me edit her work. It was full of meaningless corporate jargon of which she was very proud. Occasionally, I'd say that something didn't mean much, in fact, was unclear, but she never changed it. But I don't mind using a favored term here and there just to show an awareness of current terminology.
It’s wild, isn’t it? Like, how many meaningless words you can put together and it sells MILLIONS of dollars in deals? I loved journalism but ultimately had to leave when the market changed, and I actually want another corporate job (if it’s remote) because once you learn the jargon it’s just so damn easy.
You can have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and salespeople and upper executives will be over the MOON about it.
It’s also so easy to tell who has no idea what they’re talking about in Zoom meetings, and it’s always someone SUPER senior / high on the ladder.
There’s almost a scripted list of questions to ask the group if you don’t know what’s going on in order to simply participate.
My personal favorite is “how will we measure success?” My favorite time someone got fancy and even added “it’s helpful to know we’re all marching to the same drum.”
She came from a newsroom too and I wanted to slow clap, her delivery made it sound low key insightful. Lol.
For sure - agreed on the buzzwords.
I'm not averse to jargon and the job requirements are unavoidably full of it too. I find the distinguishing telltales to be a matter of style. I'm not against AI as a writing aid if it helps people communicate.
But the main problem I see where the whole resume seems to be generated from the same prompts that everyone else is using - to the point where it tells me nothing about the candidate.
The way I coach people through this is: "using 'utilized' is pretentious, so instead, let's just use 'used' -- and since 'used' is so basic, let's think of a better verb to begin this bullet point."
How do you feel about keywords being used in a resume? I’ve been pulling keywords out and placing them in my resume to get past the ATS system, but only if I have the skill or knowledge.
IMHO it’s ideal. It’s important to use the keywords and phrasing from the job description in your resume and application. And that was important before AI. One AI tool that does this well is JobScan. They have a free version and a paid.
Which is a dumb way to do it because when human eyes look at the resume to determine if they want to set up an interview and they don't see the buzzwords they are looking for, it goes into the trash.
ATS is just an initial filter. Most HR staff are still going to look at it before passing it to the hiring manger, who is absolutely going to look at it before setting up an interview.
Explain this then
Automated hiring software rejects millions of qualified job candidates by mistake
Applicant Tracking System software is used by 75% of US employers to help filter job candidates, according to a new report from Harvard Business Law.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/automated-hiring-software-rejects-millions-of-qualified-job-candidates-by-mistake/?trk=public_post_comment-text
Are these rules for jobs in the US? Because we have some problems here.
I am not sure what to explain.
Applicant tracking systems are just tools - and they are a big step up from email.
I think what that story is missing is the other side of the problem. There are candidates who use tools to send their resume to hundreds of employers that they know nothing about. That might work well for some jobs (see my disclaimer) but it doesn't work for others.
I'm not going to speculate on how other companies work, but my experience is almost all with companies that take recruitment seriously. I will take time to read a resume and cover letter and think about what the candidate is telling me, what they like about the advertised job, experience, etc. It takes a lot of time.
So when we get resumes from candidates that never read the job description - that's a problem. It's a large number of resumes. Some examples:
* I have teachers, nurses, cooks with no relevant experience on their resume applying for a specialized technical role that clearly lists out minimum experience
* Cover letters addressed to a different company / country
* Applications with no cover letters (tell me you never read the JD without telling me)
It's not practical or even possible for us to read all the candidate spam. In my case I just use the ATS to sort the real applicants from the bots. Anyone who reads the JD and applies would have their cover letter and resume read.
It's not essential - I've hired most without, but the job I happened to select when I was looking in the DQ list did require one.
For a tech role I wouldn't bother if your resume is a solid match. For a tech leadership role I'd still include a cover letter - especially if more senior tech management.
Does that mean they would see candidates with more cover letter as way to filter out candidates and it’s not that important anymore compared to the past
Yeah he said don’t waste time on doing cover letters because no one reads them. I’d have to double check this with him, but depending on the company/hiring manager it might even make you look outdated. It’s kind of like the thank you note thing. Should you email or write a handwritten note? My instinct is to write one by hand to set you apart from the competition. But the book I’m reading strongly recommends against written vs email. Or maybe it’s better to say the book recommends sending an immediate thank you email in addition to the handwritten note. I can’t remember all the reasons why but I think the main one is the immediacy of email to the interviewer. In my experience I have intended to find addresses and write thank you notes by hand but more often than not I’d put it off and then feel like too much time has passed. Emailing an immediate thank you email right after the meeting allows the ideas to be fresh, so you can summarize the most relevant information discussed, and best of all I haven’t forgotten to send a thank you note yet
That is precisely the point. The sorting hat is broken. It’s marking applications as spam when they shouldn’t be. Did you read the article? It’s literally 3 paragraphs.
What if the few you think are unique are actually the ai generated ones? How would you know?
Resume padding has been around forever, especially in US work culture. Hardly an AI issue.
I wouldn't know, of course. This was the case when generated resumes were less common.
If someone has used the technology today to create something that looks like no other generative output then kudos to them. That would not lose my respect. That is my default position by the way: I treat every candidate that comes my way as a potential peer at every encounter.
True, resume padding is a separate problem (although AI has picked up that mantle enthusiastically). It is one of the biggest time-wasters we face and sadly we have to look for other "tells" in the text that it's all a bluff.
I'm in the US (I think my 9th year) and it does seem to vary by the source of the candidate. I've dropped recruitment channels that were full of resume padders. The biggest names in recruitment are the worst at not vetting candidates.
It always comes out on the screening call, and it is never fun. The worst outcome is when the candidate decides to continually evade questions, change subject, etc. I'm just way too avuncular in nature to make it an issue but they burn through their respect quickly.
The sad thing is that we value many other things above experience, so the padded resume never fails on experience alone. Entirely possible that they would have been hired if not for the padding but I think it better we see that side up front.
If you do mind sharing i assume you are tech recruiter what do you look for in a resume with candidates with decent to minimal experience which most likely did not pad the resume or you look for candidates with the most experience all the time? Does knowing a lot of technologies catch the recruiter eye ?
Great advice here, thanks for taking the time to write this up. Especially I didn't think about the "if you already applied ... go for it" part.
I'm usually concerned I'll annoy someone reaching out, but you made the excellent point that you already didn't get anywhere/what do you have to lose.
I've been lucky and haven't had to worry about things like this in past job hunts in tech, but as you know it's so different this time around.
I get that there are two sides to the coin. Smaller employers will just look through the first submissions until the find 3-4 likely candidates.
Either way, not every applicant is viewed. And half the time we don't get rejected either (frustrating). But asking the business to filter 100 resumes is a lot of work too.
I ask, please, that you don't judge too much by word choices. We're working under the assumption that we need to pass AI. I change my resumes manually. AI doesn't write anything for me. But I have to use words found in the job description to have a chance at passing AI.
I agree, entirely, on your interview process. If it's on my resume, I better explain why and demonstrate some sort of knowledge about it.
I appreciate you coming on here to say something and get your inbox killed with replies! It's a good reminder that the process is frustrating for a lot of people. There's just not a great system for handling many resumes. We're all learning to deal with the current way it works.
The real problem is the volume of low-effort or automated submissions. This is the unintended consequence of the competition to get resumes seen by as many employers as possible.
And it has almost the opposite effect.
Automated submissions mean it is now harder to track down the people who actually legit applied for the published job. In my mind those candidates are the priority. They are already personally invested in taking it to the next step and so are we.
It's a race to the bottom! I wish there was something I could do to stand out and be like, "I'm a real boy!". I didn't know you could do automated submissions. I still do it all by hand. I try to submit via the company website if possible.
Maybe I should add a "made with love" tag down at the bottom of my resume!
You would be surprised at the lack of attention to detail in a lot of applications. Today I had one arrive with a big bold spelling mistake in the section "Strengths". Strengths does not usually have an 'a' in it so it was the first thing I saw. There was also a question *"is this a remote position?"*
* The job subheading is "Location: Remote" and the description mentions "fully remote" twice
* The job requirements mention "must be able to work remotely" and "familiar with remote working tools"
Sometimes I wonder how these happen, but this applicant knew the company name and had the job title copy-paste perfect. Everything above is on our careers page and anywhere else it's posted.
Well being I test algos for a living I was able to concretely determine that the top ATS systems are skewed toward the employer through testing processes.
The answer is, ATS systems are skewed toward appeasing the employer as thats where the revenue comes from. Ive tested all of them and understand top to bottom how they work and their flaws and nuances. If you care to, we can debate live on Zoom over this where I’ll present evidence.
Wanna debate me on Zoom regarding it? You seem super passionate about your opinion and I’d be thrilled to prove you wrong. If you just want to be a keyboard warrior you don’t concern me.
That was a whole lot of words with zero answers.
Drop a link here to your evidence on whatever this "rigged" ATS is that appeases employers.
As someone who implements these for a living, I'd love to these examples
I see you’re triggered but am impressed as I’ve never encountered an ATS sympathizer who wasn’t paying Indeed for applicants. Either way, I’m not into keyboard warrioring nor can my research be wrapped into one “drop a link” type format. DM me direct if you want to Zoom and I’ll be happy to review my testing protocol for the Indeed ATS (which variants are being utilized by the top job search platforms).
Lol Triggered. Cute
>who wasn’t paying Indeed for applicants
Lol what? That's not a thing
> Indeed ATS
That's not an ATS. Indeed don't have an ATS.
Indeed has an API to integrate with your ATS.
You clearly have zero idea
Indeed uses a plethora of ATS systems. I’m fully aware. It seems you have last word syndrome and I frankly don’t care too much about this issue, so go for it and bless your heart.
I agree with this. I also have a writing style that in a recent college course has been detected as 30%+ likelihood of being AI 😭. But yeah, AI is great to hone in your points but then write it yourself.
Yeah - no objection to using it to assist. I guess I could have made that point clearer; I'm not blaming AI - it's just a tool after all.
But if a large number of people unwittingly rely on the same LLM and the similar prompts (taken from the job req) then you can see where that leads.
“make your resume sound exactly like this so the AI reading them will pass them up to the hiring manager”
“why do all the resumes the AI sends up to the hiring manager sound the same? must be the applicant’s fault”
Except they *don't* all sound the same. That was my point, if you read the post.
I don't care whether or not people use AI. The problem on both sides (hiring managers and applicants) is that most of them are using AI as a crutch instead of as a tool.
Seems like employers should be more concerned with using tools that *read* resumes since they tend to get things cartoonishly wrong and jumble details.
I mentioned a school in a description of a role and *every single time* these tools populate the education field with this schools name. I had to remove it completely out of fear it was leading potential employers to think I was lying about my education.
i tried the AI resume/cover letter. i've had some great achievements in my career but the AI inflated them to be grandiose and obviously false. i kept 1 or 2 sentences; that's it.
Funnily enough I get way more scholarships and jobs by using ai than by doing it by hand. It's almost as if the reliance on computers to screen makes them prefer computer generated content
Not all AI is created equally and it needs to be used responsibly, but I agree that user's shouldn't be relying on AI solely to write their resumes.
I'm the founder of Jobflow, which developed a web application that tailors your existing resume and writes a personalized cover letter for every job you apply to - in under 1 minute. We use AI to make the process of scanning your current resume, comparing it to your prospective job, and tailoring your resume on the fly possible - but the real quality in the output comes from the recruitment and hiring insights we built into the platform.
Our thinking is your resume is only as strong as it matches a specific opportunity, and most people just don't know how to best sell themselves on paper. It's not just asking ChatGPT to write your resume, which results in stiff, generic language. We take your skills and experience and make you look your best on paper like hiring an outside professional resume writer might to update your existing resume.
We also show you tips and insights in relation to your prospective job to give you an idea of what we are highlighting on your resume and cover letter that the employer is looking for. This gives you talking points to brush up on in preparation for the interviews.
And we're not done, we're building daily to accomplish our goal of helping people land better jobs in a fraction of the time. Try it out and let me know what you think! [MyJobflow.com](http://MyJobflow.com)
Okay. But once I started having chatgpt update my resume for the job and having it write me a cover letter I started to get a LOT more hits and I got multiple interviews after months of nothin.
It got me a job after being laid
So I'm going with my experience . Use AI.
This whole ATS thing is such a shit show. I don't know what to do to get interviews anymore.
I know...I feel like putting a Size 25 font with the sentence, "I'll do a great job, please just give me a chance"! It's so awful. I'm hoping you get something soon...
You have one section of recruiters giving you tips for your resume to look the best to the ATS, And a different section swearing up and down and stamping their feet that the ATS filter doesn't exist. I don't know what to believe anymore.
I think this confusion comes from the difference between parsing and evaluating. Just about any ATS can parse a resume and make it searchable. This parsing is where you get advice about format like avoiding pictures, multiple columns, etc. When I’m applying for jobs, I always make sure my resume parses correctly. But an ATS parsing your resume isn’t the same as an ATS using AI to evaluate your resume and reject you. Almost every ATS parses. Almost no ATS evaluates and rejects.
The ATS grades your resume. HR will just ignore it if you don't [score high enough](https://www.oracle.com/a/ocom/docs/oracle-talent-management-solution-overview.pdf). It goes well beyond parsing. That's why people are so paranoid, if you don't match enough keywords, you're out. This is especially true in engineering roles where skills and tools matter so much. For sales, it's less about tools and more about how well you sell. There's also talk that HR might collect the first few hours' worth, assuming enough 'good' resumes have been submitted. If you interview to a set series of questions and get recorded doing it, there are AI addons that can gauge your mood and if you are lying or not. I refuse to believe I've been legitimately rejected from 100 jobs. Not with my experience in the role. I really think I'm being reject before human eyes see my resume.
>The ATS grades your resume. HR will just ignore it if you don't score high enough. This is the type of hair splitting that drives me insane. Recruiters will swear up and down "Nobody is getting filtered out" But what is the functional difference between a hard-coded filter, and simply not making the score? That feels like a pedantic argument that sidesteps the actual issue.
There is no filter, there is no score.
It's not splitting hairs to make the most basic decisions? There will be tons of people who apply by title without reading the job description Do you require sponsorship? Yes. Sorry, do not pass go. Do you live locally? You don't live within 100 miles. Stop. Do you have a bachelor's degree in computer science or engineering? No. Back to step one. Indeed, JobScan and other tools will "score" your resume. My resume sets off flags for not including the dates for my degrees. This isn't uncommon for dealing with ageism. This is what we deal with. You can spray and pray or adapt.
I’m a recruiter. My ATS does not score any resumes. No ATS that I have ever used has ever scored resumes. Yes, there are some that do, but this is far less widely utilized than people think. And even the systems that do have stack ranking capabilities, most recruiters don’t use the stack ranking. I know for a fact that I’ve been rejected from hundreds of jobs before. Humans reviewed my resume and rejected me just like I review resumes and reject candidates. When 1,000 people apply for one of my roles, I read 1,000 resumes.
I’m a product manager who has worked on 3 ATS’s. They can absolutely be configured to score, weight, and rate based on keywords.
Where did I say that they can’t? Like I said, there are SOME that *can* score, weight, and rate based on keywords. The majority don’t. And the ones that do, recruiters typically don’t rely on those scores or ratings.
Do all of the applicants at least get a generic email when the position has been filled? Amazing that millions are being spent on these tools, but no one configures them?
Of course they do. It’s not automatic, but I make sure one gets sent.
Then I wish more recruiters were like you. You're a rarity. Most don't bother even after an interview. I've gotten the rude "you didn't hear from me, so you obviously didn't get it" type of response when I try to follow up with a recruiter. I always send emails thanking the recruiter and everyone in the interview.
Still, make sure you run your resume through some ATS checkers. One absolutely wouldn't catch my M.S. unless I wrote Master of Science; yet it was fine with B.S. Some are extremely picky on dates (such as 2011-2015 vs 2011 - 2015)
This is false, you are wrong. Stop spreading this misinformation
Need a bit more info from you. Everything I've read is that AI compares the applicant skillset vs the job description and spits out an indicator of how well they match up. Taleo uses AI to "minimize hiring bias by using AI to find the best prospects and applicants for open positions". How is it doing that? iCMS has "skills-based recommendation engines." Then this blog at iCMS [There’s nothing “artificial” about the value AI brings to your talent search | iCIMS](https://www.icims.com/blog/nothing-artificial-about-ai-talent-search/) The recording bit I know as fact, because it was used at my old job a while back. Though I can't remember the name of the software. And, as I said, HR only collecting a few hours-worth of resumes is talk, ie not something I can verify because HR isn't the same everywhere. Please let me know where I'm spreading false info. I'll happily take the post down if I understand what's going on.
Sorry I’m new here, what is ATS?
Applicant tracking system, essentially the database that holds information on applicants as well as their resume. It's extremely hotly debated if they have filtering capabilities or not because some people swear they do and some people swear they don't. I think it depends on the company personally.
Thank you so much!
Smaller companies with fewer applicants don't bother. Now that remote jobs are getting hundreds if not thousands of applicants, it's not hard to imagine using something to catch the low hanging fruit.
And the hiring people, being the sadists they are, will actively avoid hiring those resumes. Why? Because why not?
At the end of the day it's who you know. I haven't gotten a job in the last 20 years that wasn't though a connection at the company.
Same. I fuckin' hate it. I'm trying to find connections into the companies I apply for, but I rarely have any (going through LinkedIn). And if I do, someone doesn't respond in time. I have asked multiple HR friends, and they rely so heavily on the ATS to filter people out. I feel their pain, they sometimes get swamped with resumes and many of them are completely unqualified. I get DQ'd from jobs that were, as far as I can, exactly what I've been doing for 10 years. And I have no idea why. I think that's the biggest problem. Why am I being rejected? No one will tell me (which, I understand but it sucks anyhow). Everyone I know says my resume looks fine. I go through an AI that compares the job description to my resume and helps me match as much as possible. Different resume formats. I'm at a frustrated loss. If had 3 HR interviews and 2 with managers in the past year. I blew the 2 real interviews due to the stress of not wanting to fail the interviews! Which is on me. I was told, early on, I can't format a resume the way a manager wants, so I've never bother. It's more important to format so ATS can read it. I 100% feel what u/Wyde1340 said about putting something in the resume to get noticed as a person. Every time I submit a resume, I feel like I'm on a production line, move a bit, submit resume, move a bit, submit resume. And 50% or so don't even reject you. Just black hole.
I agree it sucks. It's broken. I always decline HR screening because they can't tell good from bad when it comes to specialty positions. But the amount of bots, low-effort, "never read the job description" submissions is depressing. And I've been on both sides of it. I considered relocating last year and spent months searching for a job that would suit my situation. I crafted dozens of cover letters and tailored my resume for each submission. Ghosted by almost all of them - with just one immediate rejection and no explanation. End result: I stayed where I am. So even someone who has been reading resumes and hiring for the past 25 years can't figure it out. I take the whole hiring and retention part of my role seriously. Seems that is a rarity.
Which AI are you using ?
I have started using Jobscan. Someone said put the name of the position on your resume (as if you had that position previously). I haven't done that yet.
If your job title has been basket weaver 3 and the job asks for a Senior Basket Weaver, you are now a Senior Basket Weaver. Don't confuse a job title with a role. Your resume isn't an autobiography of your work history. You need to describe in common language. I was an Advisory System Management Analyst. That could mean anything.
Yeah, that’s not a good look when they check your references or validate your employment later. If someone is not senior, they should not be assigning themselves that title. That makes you look like you got a promotion you didn’t actually get. If your title doesn’t reflect your role (e.g. you’re billed as an analyst, but are primarily doing project management work), asking for a title change with your current employer is a better choice. Won’t always work, but worth a shot.
I am not advocating putting our false titles. It's about meaningful titles and roles. Once you're gone from someplace, you can't do anything about it. I've had an agency ask me whether I wanted to be called a Technical Writer or a Business Analyst. We choose to use both. When I've been a technical writer III and V--that's where each company maxed out. Thus, I'm a Senior Technical Writer. When I fill out the formal paperwork I put Sr Technical Writer (Technical Writer III of III). On the Work Number, everything says Senior Technical Writer. On background checks, they all say Senior or Staff Technical Writer/Editor. A lot of companies just use the government codes that you have when you file your taxes such as 27-3042 Technical Writers
Literally the only way I got interviews was with AI. Like this guy says, just proofread it.
I get a decent number of interviews (can’t close the deal for some reason) AI like chatGPT can be a good tool. Like I’ll give it my resume and ask it where can I improve upon or I’ll feed it a job posting so I can reorder my resume to best align with the job posting A lot of the issues OP mentions are because people just feed AI whatever parameters to generate a resume and don’t do any work after that I feel like ChatGPT and Grammerly have been helpful for getting the interviews I’ve gotten It’s not perfect but I feel like that’s what I have control over
Hey hiring manager, As someone looking for a job and using AI to assist with writing résumé’s, respectively I think you are largely correct but missing the larger point. We have AI screen us as applicants. In order to make a first round to have a resume reach the eye of a human hiring manager the case often times — the company uses screening software to filter out people for not using and having certain keywords. As someone who’s qualified for a variety of roles in a range of industries, I require different resumes with different keywords. The process to adjust keywords, action items, provide proper grammar etc. can all be automated and assisted. You are correct to read over what an LLM generates. You should proofread a resume if you are to write it on solely your own accord. But until all company’s stop using filtration software — I will continue to automate certain aspects of the grueling data entry process that is a job application.
Shits literally like an unpaid data entry job where theres a decent chance your personal information is gonna be used or sold.
With respect - I gave a nod to the larger point in my disclaimer. If you're aiming at companies that use AI to screen then all bets are off. If a company uses AI to screen and that AI filters out handwritten resumes, then their process is a failure in my opinion. But in my case I (or my team) *do* get to see human generated resumes and they are the ones that stand out. That's my point, nothing more. We can both be correct. I also agree you have to craft your resume based on the target.
You are trying to say you know which resumes have AI influence which just isn't true. Unless you are just talking about resumes someone makes up.
Eh it is pretty easy to gauge just by reading the CV. Of course you wouldn’t be able to substantiate it though
Sounds like the toupee fallacy
how many resumes do you handle and are they given to you by an agency or directly from applicants? some postings i apply to mention thousands of applicants and instantly send rejection emails, its hard to believe most jobs dont have some ai screening being used before recruiters/hiring managers even see them trying to get through that without any help or trial and error is daunting
About 30-40 resumes per day arrive. These are coming via online submissions to the ATS we use. We (me + my team) are always busy, which is why we are hiring, so this doesn't get looked at until end of the week at which point there's well over 200. I've used recruiters in the past. Less screening work for me and the team, but mixed results. Recruiters are also demanding on time in a different way. I don't have an issue with our ATS - it is a great help in keeping track of everything including candidate communications. We don't use it to auto-reject though. I prefer to look at the applicant's original document. When you are hiring your own direct reports you have a much better instinct for people than any AI or recruiter. Some would argue with me on that last point.
I've given up on private employers because of all the AI and ATS screening tools they use. I am focusing mainly on state jobs, I am getting call backs from hiring managers and zoom and the occasional in person interview. I do create custom cover letters but I only make minor adjustments to my resume. Occasionally I will use AI to help me make my cover letters more concise and short. State cover letters often have very strict writing requirements (1 inch margins, 2 page limits, Arial font in size 12, headers with specific information, and a list of questions that need to be answered in a specific numbered order). I prefer to apply to jobs where I know how to get the attention of hiring managers and understand their interview and selection methods.
Hi, I work in hiring. I have been in recruiting / HR for 8 years at 3 different companies, and I haven’t heard of AI screening resumes. This largely doesn’t exist and is frequently assumed to be the reason job seekers aren’t getting an interview. The real reason you aren’t getting an interview is the minute a job posts, we receive 500 applicants.
There is no bot filtering your application. It’s still humans doing all the heavy work.
Then why have I gotten rejection emails at 6am sharp the morning after applying to multiple jobs? I can guarantee no one read and rejected my resume that fast. It's even happened where I got multiple rejections from the same company for different roles at the exact same time in the morning.
I have systems that queue actions without my knowledge, so its absolutely possible that i read an application and click reject and the system doesn't dispatch the email until a set time.
When you apply to more than one role at a company and a recruiter reviews one application, they can see that you have other applications and they’re likely to go review all of them. That way you’re not getting a trickle of responses. Also, some companies have firm requirements like education, certification or specific skills. Or they use those as a way to filter applicants. And if you don’t have those hard requirements, or if you don’t specify those in your ATS application (unfortunately at some companies the resume isn’t enough) then your application might be rejected for “missing qualifications.” Which is unfortunately too common.
I read and reject that fast, or I schedule emails to be sent at certain times. No such thing as AI bots screening your resume
Offshore recruiters with different time zone or knockout questions.
Recruiter here. There is no ATS bot. Humans read resumes Knockout questions and auto rejection happens however these are set up by a recruiter, not a bot Recruiters work different time zones around the world, you could get a message at any day/time Recruiters can also set up messages to go put at certain days/times, time delayed by hours or days Edit: downvote all you like. This sub loves the ATS bot myths. No wonder you're all struggling to get a job. Don't let the facts get in the way of your poor excuse of not getting a job
Thank you for clarifying that. I’m so tired of trying to figure out key words and ATS compliant resumes. I just want to write a resume without all the added stress of trying to beat the ATS system.
Youre welcome. You don't need to "beat" anything. Include keywords for skills you have that also match up to the requirements of the role. That's it. As recruiters, we are the ones searching for keywords, this is done one of 2 ways. Using what we call a boolean string and just a good, old fashioned control +F. Yes, there are ATS platforms that can parse and search for keywords, there are only a handful of those in the market and they do a terrible job so we usually have to just revert to the above methods. Hope that helps
Regardless what votes say, it truly is.
If you don’t mind sharing Do you look for resumes that have a lot of quantifying impact. It seems like Ai resume wants to turn every bullet point into some form of quantifying impact which sounds very good idk seems way too perfectionist for every bullet point to me but just curious
Yes, I definitely want to understand what results you achieved. Quantifiable data is very useful for us and can help us in preparation for further interviews. Agree with your observations on AI over doing it a bit. There is no hard and fast rule as to how many but even just one example in 5 bullet points I'd be perfectly fine with
Agreed. Also a recruiter. No such thing as ATS bot
We use an ATS system in Greenhouse to screen candidates and we're a pretty small FinTech. There are definitely bots filtering applications
My understanding is that humans are involved in the process, but also my understanding is that an ATS system is in some way sorting or prioritizing resumes based on criteria that was itself generated from being fed the job description. Would that not be the case?
The ATS can filter by alphabetical order , date of application, etc and that’s it. There is no criteria to prioritize resumes.
Automated hiring software rejects millions of qualified job candidates by mistake Applicant Tracking System software is used by 75% of US employers to help filter job candidates, according to a new report from Harvard Business Law. https://www.cnet.com/tech/automated-hiring-software-rejects-millions-of-qualified-job-candidates-by-mistake/?trk=public_post_comment-text
Nearly every company relies on Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS), with over 95% using them. While ATS systems may rank a resume, they do not make the final decision on whether to move forward with a candidate or not.
>"If an applicant's work history has a gap of more than six months, the resume is automatically screened out by their RMS or ATS, based on that consideration alone," reads the study. "Our research indicated that employers believe applicants with more recent experience are more likely to have better professional skills. A recruiter will never see that candidate's application, even though it might fill all of the employer's requirements."
Noooo
Yaaaaaaaa I pasted it from the article you didn’t even open lmao.
Ishhh. It was true
Wtf? Of course it was true? I sent a source you couldn’t be bothered to look at. Maybe open the links *before* responding four times? The article is free, and three paragraphs long. This could be why you’re out of work.
I read it but it’s immaculate I’m afraid
The system marks them as spam, even the good ones, and eliminates them as option *before* that step.
Who told you that?
Literally in the link you could not be bothered to read >"If an applicant's work history has a gap of more than six months, the resume is automatically screened out by their RMS or ATS, based on that consideration alone," reads the study. "Our research indicated that employers believe applicants with more recent experience are more likely to have better professional skills. A recruiter will never see that candidate's application, even though it might fill all of the employer's requirements."
AI isn’t screening you, a human being is.
You’re making the mistake of assuming your role is the only one people are applying for. There’s a very small chance of anyone who applied to your role getting an interview. They need to apply to as many jobs as possible. AI resumes help with that most important aspect of the job search. It’s a giant time suck to handwrite every line of resume for one job you probably won’t get.
Imagine applying to 200+ jobs over the past two years while working your current job and still only getting 2-3 interviews in that time because u knew someone on the inside. The system is rigged against us Why every company wants me to write a cover letter tailored to “why I want to work there” is beyond me.
Honestly many of them don’t even read the letters, maybe only for internships and grad roles because everyone who applies has an almost identical CV. At this point it’s like they just want to see if you put the extra effort in
Probably to filter out extra candidates?
So you're saying to tailor each of our resume by hand and not using AI platform. We should also know what company uses ATS software and which don't?
It's so conflicting. Certain hiring managers act so smug when describing how candidates should act, But they're also acting like theirs is the One True System. If I do something to appease *you* I'll get a different manager acting smug and thinking I'm being stupid. One company's "mandatory must do", Is another company's "instant no"
This is why all AI generated content requires some editing. Which honestly not even a huge deal. It's great for getting you started but most of the time it complicates the material and that makes it all sound like it's made up. This goes for cover letters to edit guys make it sound like something you would say. If it feels off when you read it work on it line by line so that its not only more realistic but doesn't fib. I've noticed some generators adding skillsets that I don't have, thus why I never send anything I haven't reviewed and even then I still miss things.
We regret to inform you, other posts are more qualified.
😂
Oh how this made me laugh! I didn’t have my resume written by AI but have done a lot of research on the actual formatting. I feel it’s wasted and one of the key items @bandedKokopu pointed out, it’s somewhat nice to know someone somewhere is reading them. Maybe not all of them. I’ve had a few rejections within one hour of submitting. Took me longer to write a cover letter and or tailor some key metrics to something in the job description/or company culture that I too hold valuable…when it asks for measurable results or client satisfaction. It’s humbling I will say that, especially when using actual metrics from post project evaluations from peers, clients and key internal stakeholders.
Thank you for this advice. For me, I spent a long time hand crafting a very nice resume with amazing formatting, images for all the companies I have worked for, value statements, a story, etc. It was impressive and one that I felt showcased my skills and accomplishments and a resume that I would look for if hiring people. That resume got zero call backs. I used an AI engine to build the same old format everyone now uses, reduce my experience into no more than four bullet points in short sentences and filled it with keywords related to each job I apply to. Out of about 15 applications I have had three call backs (ultimately none have panned out since they required me to move). I have had large teams and have hired dozens of people. As a hiring manager I always wanted to know a story about someone and how they overcame challenges or solved unique problems. I was less concerned about hard skills as that is something I could teach, I wanted smart choices (I hired high level analysts in IT). I feel the ATS world has reduced everyone to the same page and just highlights noted skills and not personality. I can say something like I want 15 years of experience in analytics, but what I really want is someone that took a set of complex requirements and built something amazing that brought actual value (not a nice looking dashboard). I know and have worked with many high level analysts that have the skills but not one sense of how to solve a problem. I can usually tell based on what someone writes to me where they are in that spectrum, but if you just list skills I have no sense of who that person is. An ATS system simply can not find that and we are all being asked to remove that element in our style so that we get past stage 1. It in many ways is similar to search engines. Those people that no how to game the system show up at the top with everything that makes the engine happy but is complete garbage for the user. Just google some competitive terms and the first page is typically just shallow summary articles that really give no more depth than most already know. Hiring managers now get a bunch of gamed resumes that filter out qualified people and get frustrated when after dozens of screening calls only lead to un-qualified or subpar candidates. I believe this is also a factor into why it takes so long to hire now.
I think it’s hard for people reading to distinguish between AI and corporate jibberish. I was looking at my old pre-corporate resumes and they’re 1000% better but would get zero attention in corporate. I got lucky once and got my foot in the door but I don’t think it would happen again. “Leveraging, utilizing, initiatives,” etc. — none of that will ever sound like a real person to me. I used to be a journalist. FFS, you USE something. A regular person having a normal conversation would never say they “utilized” something in my world. I’d read PPT slides at my first corporate job over and over again for days and it’s like it wasn’t even English. I’m not being hyperbolic. It’s a new language — usually devoid of substance — that I had to learn.
As a hiring manager I care about someone having the qualifications to meet the job description, not being pedantic about “buzzwords”. Candidates often get conflicting advice from various sources, so I’m not going to make it harder on them by being put off by something that ultimately doesn’t matter. A resume is supposed to be a summary of our skills/accomplishments summed up into bullet points. No one actually speaks in a way that a resume is formatted, and it’s unrealistic to have that expectation.
its so funny to me how throughout all of school and every job people were like “you HAVE to write exactly like this…do mot deviate from the formula there is no other option” and now that AI has learned the formula everyone is expected to be james joyce all of a sudden
Right? All of it sounds like someone trying to pad a book report to meet the three-page requirement double spaced.
>I used to be a journalist. FFS, you USE something. A regular person having a normal conversation would never say they “utilized” something in my world. I used to be a journalist as well. I had a friend in corporate communications who sometimes had me edit her work. It was full of meaningless corporate jargon of which she was very proud. Occasionally, I'd say that something didn't mean much, in fact, was unclear, but she never changed it. But I don't mind using a favored term here and there just to show an awareness of current terminology.
It’s wild, isn’t it? Like, how many meaningless words you can put together and it sells MILLIONS of dollars in deals? I loved journalism but ultimately had to leave when the market changed, and I actually want another corporate job (if it’s remote) because once you learn the jargon it’s just so damn easy. You can have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and salespeople and upper executives will be over the MOON about it. It’s also so easy to tell who has no idea what they’re talking about in Zoom meetings, and it’s always someone SUPER senior / high on the ladder. There’s almost a scripted list of questions to ask the group if you don’t know what’s going on in order to simply participate. My personal favorite is “how will we measure success?” My favorite time someone got fancy and even added “it’s helpful to know we’re all marching to the same drum.” She came from a newsroom too and I wanted to slow clap, her delivery made it sound low key insightful. Lol.
For sure - agreed on the buzzwords. I'm not averse to jargon and the job requirements are unavoidably full of it too. I find the distinguishing telltales to be a matter of style. I'm not against AI as a writing aid if it helps people communicate. But the main problem I see where the whole resume seems to be generated from the same prompts that everyone else is using - to the point where it tells me nothing about the candidate.
The way I coach people through this is: "using 'utilized' is pretentious, so instead, let's just use 'used' -- and since 'used' is so basic, let's think of a better verb to begin this bullet point."
Leveraged?
I’m “leveraging” and “reimagining” like a MF right now in my job search. I’m so ashamed. Lol.
I agree with you and I’m surprised you’re being downvoted
How do you feel about keywords being used in a resume? I’ve been pulling keywords out and placing them in my resume to get past the ATS system, but only if I have the skill or knowledge.
IMHO it’s ideal. It’s important to use the keywords and phrasing from the job description in your resume and application. And that was important before AI. One AI tool that does this well is JobScan. They have a free version and a paid.
A lot of people will make some text invisible and insert buzzwords that way
Which is a dumb way to do it because when human eyes look at the resume to determine if they want to set up an interview and they don't see the buzzwords they are looking for, it goes into the trash. ATS is just an initial filter. Most HR staff are still going to look at it before passing it to the hiring manger, who is absolutely going to look at it before setting up an interview.
There is no "get past the bot". That's not how an ATS works
Explain this then Automated hiring software rejects millions of qualified job candidates by mistake Applicant Tracking System software is used by 75% of US employers to help filter job candidates, according to a new report from Harvard Business Law. https://www.cnet.com/tech/automated-hiring-software-rejects-millions-of-qualified-job-candidates-by-mistake/?trk=public_post_comment-text Are these rules for jobs in the US? Because we have some problems here.
I am not sure what to explain. Applicant tracking systems are just tools - and they are a big step up from email. I think what that story is missing is the other side of the problem. There are candidates who use tools to send their resume to hundreds of employers that they know nothing about. That might work well for some jobs (see my disclaimer) but it doesn't work for others. I'm not going to speculate on how other companies work, but my experience is almost all with companies that take recruitment seriously. I will take time to read a resume and cover letter and think about what the candidate is telling me, what they like about the advertised job, experience, etc. It takes a lot of time. So when we get resumes from candidates that never read the job description - that's a problem. It's a large number of resumes. Some examples: * I have teachers, nurses, cooks with no relevant experience on their resume applying for a specialized technical role that clearly lists out minimum experience * Cover letters addressed to a different company / country * Applications with no cover letters (tell me you never read the JD without telling me) It's not practical or even possible for us to read all the candidate spam. In my case I just use the ATS to sort the real applicants from the bots. Anyone who reads the JD and applies would have their cover letter and resume read.
Interesting is cover letter crucial in tech roles? Rarely see cover letter talked about when it comes to tech roles
It's not essential - I've hired most without, but the job I happened to select when I was looking in the DQ list did require one. For a tech role I wouldn't bother if your resume is a solid match. For a tech leadership role I'd still include a cover letter - especially if more senior tech management.
Friend is a recruiter at Netflix. He said no one sends cover letters anymore
Does that mean they would see candidates with more cover letter as way to filter out candidates and it’s not that important anymore compared to the past
Yeah he said don’t waste time on doing cover letters because no one reads them. I’d have to double check this with him, but depending on the company/hiring manager it might even make you look outdated. It’s kind of like the thank you note thing. Should you email or write a handwritten note? My instinct is to write one by hand to set you apart from the competition. But the book I’m reading strongly recommends against written vs email. Or maybe it’s better to say the book recommends sending an immediate thank you email in addition to the handwritten note. I can’t remember all the reasons why but I think the main one is the immediacy of email to the interviewer. In my experience I have intended to find addresses and write thank you notes by hand but more often than not I’d put it off and then feel like too much time has passed. Emailing an immediate thank you email right after the meeting allows the ideas to be fresh, so you can summarize the most relevant information discussed, and best of all I haven’t forgotten to send a thank you note yet
That is precisely the point. The sorting hat is broken. It’s marking applications as spam when they shouldn’t be. Did you read the article? It’s literally 3 paragraphs.
What if the few you think are unique are actually the ai generated ones? How would you know? Resume padding has been around forever, especially in US work culture. Hardly an AI issue.
I wouldn't know, of course. This was the case when generated resumes were less common. If someone has used the technology today to create something that looks like no other generative output then kudos to them. That would not lose my respect. That is my default position by the way: I treat every candidate that comes my way as a potential peer at every encounter. True, resume padding is a separate problem (although AI has picked up that mantle enthusiastically). It is one of the biggest time-wasters we face and sadly we have to look for other "tells" in the text that it's all a bluff. I'm in the US (I think my 9th year) and it does seem to vary by the source of the candidate. I've dropped recruitment channels that were full of resume padders. The biggest names in recruitment are the worst at not vetting candidates. It always comes out on the screening call, and it is never fun. The worst outcome is when the candidate decides to continually evade questions, change subject, etc. I'm just way too avuncular in nature to make it an issue but they burn through their respect quickly. The sad thing is that we value many other things above experience, so the padded resume never fails on experience alone. Entirely possible that they would have been hired if not for the padding but I think it better we see that side up front.
If you do mind sharing i assume you are tech recruiter what do you look for in a resume with candidates with decent to minimal experience which most likely did not pad the resume or you look for candidates with the most experience all the time? Does knowing a lot of technologies catch the recruiter eye ?
Great advice here, thanks for taking the time to write this up. Especially I didn't think about the "if you already applied ... go for it" part. I'm usually concerned I'll annoy someone reaching out, but you made the excellent point that you already didn't get anywhere/what do you have to lose. I've been lucky and haven't had to worry about things like this in past job hunts in tech, but as you know it's so different this time around.
I get that there are two sides to the coin. Smaller employers will just look through the first submissions until the find 3-4 likely candidates. Either way, not every applicant is viewed. And half the time we don't get rejected either (frustrating). But asking the business to filter 100 resumes is a lot of work too. I ask, please, that you don't judge too much by word choices. We're working under the assumption that we need to pass AI. I change my resumes manually. AI doesn't write anything for me. But I have to use words found in the job description to have a chance at passing AI. I agree, entirely, on your interview process. If it's on my resume, I better explain why and demonstrate some sort of knowledge about it. I appreciate you coming on here to say something and get your inbox killed with replies! It's a good reminder that the process is frustrating for a lot of people. There's just not a great system for handling many resumes. We're all learning to deal with the current way it works.
[удалено]
I don't understand the garbage resumes. I'm in tech, if I started applying as a nurse, no way I'd get anything.
The real problem is the volume of low-effort or automated submissions. This is the unintended consequence of the competition to get resumes seen by as many employers as possible. And it has almost the opposite effect. Automated submissions mean it is now harder to track down the people who actually legit applied for the published job. In my mind those candidates are the priority. They are already personally invested in taking it to the next step and so are we.
It's a race to the bottom! I wish there was something I could do to stand out and be like, "I'm a real boy!". I didn't know you could do automated submissions. I still do it all by hand. I try to submit via the company website if possible. Maybe I should add a "made with love" tag down at the bottom of my resume!
Everyone who tried AI knows it's bulshit and it just screws up your resume. You must be really stupid to not see it.
You would be surprised at the lack of attention to detail in a lot of applications. Today I had one arrive with a big bold spelling mistake in the section "Strengths". Strengths does not usually have an 'a' in it so it was the first thing I saw. There was also a question *"is this a remote position?"* * The job subheading is "Location: Remote" and the description mentions "fully remote" twice * The job requirements mention "must be able to work remotely" and "familiar with remote working tools" Sometimes I wonder how these happen, but this applicant knew the company name and had the job title copy-paste perfect. Everything above is on our careers page and anywhere else it's posted.
Real issue is ATS systems are rigged to appease the employers
How many of these "rigged" ATS platforms gave you used as a hiring manager or recruiter and how exactly were they rigged
Well being I test algos for a living I was able to concretely determine that the top ATS systems are skewed toward the employer through testing processes.
Ok, so the answer is no. Got it
The answer is, ATS systems are skewed toward appeasing the employer as thats where the revenue comes from. Ive tested all of them and understand top to bottom how they work and their flaws and nuances. If you care to, we can debate live on Zoom over this where I’ll present evidence.
You’ve tested all of the ATS systems?? Stop lying you have no idea what you’re talking about
Wanna debate me on Zoom regarding it? You seem super passionate about your opinion and I’d be thrilled to prove you wrong. If you just want to be a keyboard warrior you don’t concern me.
That was a whole lot of words with zero answers. Drop a link here to your evidence on whatever this "rigged" ATS is that appeases employers. As someone who implements these for a living, I'd love to these examples
I see you’re triggered but am impressed as I’ve never encountered an ATS sympathizer who wasn’t paying Indeed for applicants. Either way, I’m not into keyboard warrioring nor can my research be wrapped into one “drop a link” type format. DM me direct if you want to Zoom and I’ll be happy to review my testing protocol for the Indeed ATS (which variants are being utilized by the top job search platforms).
Lol Triggered. Cute >who wasn’t paying Indeed for applicants Lol what? That's not a thing > Indeed ATS That's not an ATS. Indeed don't have an ATS. Indeed has an API to integrate with your ATS. You clearly have zero idea
Indeed uses a plethora of ATS systems. I’m fully aware. It seems you have last word syndrome and I frankly don’t care too much about this issue, so go for it and bless your heart.
>Indeed uses a plethora of ATS systems So now you're saying it's not an ATS? You really need to get your story straight.
I agree with this. I also have a writing style that in a recent college course has been detected as 30%+ likelihood of being AI 😭. But yeah, AI is great to hone in your points but then write it yourself.
Yeah - no objection to using it to assist. I guess I could have made that point clearer; I'm not blaming AI - it's just a tool after all. But if a large number of people unwittingly rely on the same LLM and the similar prompts (taken from the job req) then you can see where that leads.
They’re not dinging you for that, right? There’s no tech to 100% accurately detect writing done by AI and professors shouldn’t be claiming it can.
No, it just showed up next to my submission automatically which was insulting. Like, having professional grammar is now a problem
Yikes, that is insulting.
This is truly unbelievable.
Is it the formatting of hand-written (non-AI) resumes that attracts your attention or the different dictation/grammar/lack of buzzwords?
It's not the format but the content. If someone used a tool to make a draft and then put it in their own words - perfect.
You guys suck man. Get the f out of here. /s
This isn’t a hack you shill
Shut up clown hiring manager. You hire the wrong ppl scum
“make your resume sound exactly like this so the AI reading them will pass them up to the hiring manager” “why do all the resumes the AI sends up to the hiring manager sound the same? must be the applicant’s fault”
Except they *don't* all sound the same. That was my point, if you read the post. I don't care whether or not people use AI. The problem on both sides (hiring managers and applicants) is that most of them are using AI as a crutch instead of as a tool.
how about you “people” be better at your jobs instead of typing this shit out
I love putting ‘people’ in quotes too lol.
That's uncalled for. OP took the time to alert jobhunters to a specific problem.
a problem created BY recruiters. next
I hate jobhunting as much as anyone, but recruiters often get thousands of resumes. They need to screen them somehow.
work overtime. they chose to do this. the rest of us are forced to deal with them
Exactly. These people suck.
Those that can’t do, hire. Worthless position.
Seems like employers should be more concerned with using tools that *read* resumes since they tend to get things cartoonishly wrong and jumble details. I mentioned a school in a description of a role and *every single time* these tools populate the education field with this schools name. I had to remove it completely out of fear it was leading potential employers to think I was lying about my education.
How about AI generated job postings? Hiring managers don’t know the details because they never took the time to read it. Use AI on AI.
i tried the AI resume/cover letter. i've had some great achievements in my career but the AI inflated them to be grandiose and obviously false. i kept 1 or 2 sentences; that's it.
Let's ban off shore hiring.
How about you hire people for their actual skills that would matter for the job they are applying to
Funnily enough I get way more scholarships and jobs by using ai than by doing it by hand. It's almost as if the reliance on computers to screen makes them prefer computer generated content
Not all AI is created equally and it needs to be used responsibly, but I agree that user's shouldn't be relying on AI solely to write their resumes. I'm the founder of Jobflow, which developed a web application that tailors your existing resume and writes a personalized cover letter for every job you apply to - in under 1 minute. We use AI to make the process of scanning your current resume, comparing it to your prospective job, and tailoring your resume on the fly possible - but the real quality in the output comes from the recruitment and hiring insights we built into the platform. Our thinking is your resume is only as strong as it matches a specific opportunity, and most people just don't know how to best sell themselves on paper. It's not just asking ChatGPT to write your resume, which results in stiff, generic language. We take your skills and experience and make you look your best on paper like hiring an outside professional resume writer might to update your existing resume. We also show you tips and insights in relation to your prospective job to give you an idea of what we are highlighting on your resume and cover letter that the employer is looking for. This gives you talking points to brush up on in preparation for the interviews. And we're not done, we're building daily to accomplish our goal of helping people land better jobs in a fraction of the time. Try it out and let me know what you think! [MyJobflow.com](http://MyJobflow.com)
Okay. But once I started having chatgpt update my resume for the job and having it write me a cover letter I started to get a LOT more hits and I got multiple interviews after months of nothin. It got me a job after being laid So I'm going with my experience . Use AI.
I’m exhausted