Getting a bit gross here, you might feel pretty assaulted if the person doing the breaking was someone you knew, maybe someone you detested, or maybe a parent or step-parent or older relative. Or younger, for that matter.
The problem is that Google has a credibility problem wrt supporting their products over long periods of time. Even if this particular report is wrong, it's still "true" in that sense.
For potential users, why should we take the risk when there are other competitors that don't have this problem?
That's true. I'm making a guess based on the limited time I can spend--that's part of why resumes are so valuable.
In my limited experience, there tends to be a fairly pronounced cutoff below which candidates obviously lack the basic skills or inclination for the position, or even didn't bother to read the job spec at all.
It hasn't been my role to handle contacts. I hope the org is sending out "position has been filled" courtesy letters, but as a candidate, I usually don't care unless it's a position I was particularly hopeful about.
To clarify, I don't consider anyone a "dud". I'll happily work with someone at any skill level as long as they want to learn and aren't a jerk. By "not worth contacting", I just mean that they're clearly dominated by the top 20% of the candidates, in terms of likely success in the role.
Is there noise in all of this? Sure. Am I a genius? Yes, but not when it comes to hiring. ;-)
I've been crapped on plenty by the hiring process (esp those FAANG weenies), so I try to be kind to everyone.
I don't get this "resumes are so yesterday" thinking at all. They are a crucial tool for me in the hiring process. I can sift a pile of 20-30 resumes in maybe 10 minutes and determine with near certainty the 20% or so that are even worth contacting. Plus the resume is an excellent jumping-off point for further conversation.
Being able to write a reasonable essay may not differentiate you, but not being able to sure does.
I could keep going, but it gets worse...