Why isn't there a universal data format for résumés?(toot.cat)
toot.cat
Why isn't there a universal data format for résumés?
https://toot.cat/@woozle/107634232290378715
471 comments
>Documents like these shouldn't be automatically processed, they should be reviewed by humans.
That's very nice to think about but in the real world if people don't match some exact keywords they get thrown away. HR is looking for "node.js" but you wrote it like "nodejs"? Though luck pal, bye. HR wants a "computer scientist" but you have a degree in "computer science"? Same, automatically discarded.
If anything, a standard format would at least allow people to classify themselves/others correctly and without ambiguity.
That's very nice to think about but in the real world if people don't match some exact keywords they get thrown away. HR is looking for "node.js" but you wrote it like "nodejs"? Though luck pal, bye. HR wants a "computer scientist" but you have a degree in "computer science"? Same, automatically discarded.
If anything, a standard format would at least allow people to classify themselves/others correctly and without ambiguity.
HR is looking for "node.js" but you wrote it like "nodejs"? Though luck pal, bye. HR wants a "computer scientist" but you have a degree in "computer science"? Same, automatically discarded.
Fixing that would require not only a universal data format but also a universal taxonomy of terms to describe skills. That would need everyone to agree on how to describe what they do. Easy enough when you're describing programming languages, but effectively impossible for any softer skills. This is precisely why you need the human aspect.
The way to fix the issue you describe is to educate HR people, not to try to apply technology to a non-tech problem.
Fixing that would require not only a universal data format but also a universal taxonomy of terms to describe skills. That would need everyone to agree on how to describe what they do. Easy enough when you're describing programming languages, but effectively impossible for any softer skills. This is precisely why you need the human aspect.
The way to fix the issue you describe is to educate HR people, not to try to apply technology to a non-tech problem.
I'm pretty sure my Resume says "crazy outside-the-box madman" on it somewhere near the top. It pretty much guarantees that I work somewhere with a sense of humor while rejected from places that take themselves too seriously.
Resumes aren't just a list of skills and work history (education isn't even on my resume anymore), it's also a chance to let a small amount of your personality show through so you stand out against the pile.
Of course, if you're submitting to a big corp, you'll be fighting against AI reading your resume first, so, write for that if that's how you roll. I usually only apply to smaller companies that apparently end up as bigger companies by the time I move on.
Resumes aren't just a list of skills and work history (education isn't even on my resume anymore), it's also a chance to let a small amount of your personality show through so you stand out against the pile.
Of course, if you're submitting to a big corp, you'll be fighting against AI reading your resume first, so, write for that if that's how you roll. I usually only apply to smaller companies that apparently end up as bigger companies by the time I move on.
>"crazy outside-the-box madman"
I like that so much that I dare not copycat it.
I like that so much that I dare not copycat it.
I think I actually scored some jobs and interviews while I still kept "wizard" at the top of my CV...
"Wizard at getting resume's to pass automatic resume scanners"
My LinkedIn recruiter spam dropped substantially when I added "literally a wizard" to the skills section (and removed everything remotely tech-telated).
https://www.linkedin.com/mwlite/in/mikkelpaulson
https://www.linkedin.com/mwlite/in/mikkelpaulson
win / win :D
[deleted]
see also "never fully domesticated", to quote one HN profile description.
in the house == domesticated
house approxEqual box
in the house == domesticated
house approxEqual box
In a previous life, I was an SRE. Volunteered as a firefighter.
"Keeps things running. Puts out fires."
Served me well on the resume, probably for quite similar reasons.
"Keeps things running. Puts out fires."
Served me well on the resume, probably for quite similar reasons.
I go by "unicorn wrangler" on mine for the same reason
Fixing that would require not only a universal data format but also a universal taxonomy of terms
A regular HR can only do CTRL-F CTRL-V efficiently in their PDF viewer, when automated system would likely test for /\bnode(?:\.?js)?\b/i, because it's a result of a development cycle, which usually includes some field analysis. HRs would LOVE to select something like "where has($node) and years($redux) >= 2 order by years($php) desc". They are not idiots, they just have piles of data and nonsensical tools. Of course they optimize for nonsense.
A human could search for different variations too, but they are average in average and have no the expertise to install a regex-able viewer. It's stupid little things like this that prevent them from doing their job better, not some systemic issue of their own.
A regular HR can only do CTRL-F CTRL-V efficiently in their PDF viewer, when automated system would likely test for /\bnode(?:\.?js)?\b/i, because it's a result of a development cycle, which usually includes some field analysis. HRs would LOVE to select something like "where has($node) and years($redux) >= 2 order by years($php) desc". They are not idiots, they just have piles of data and nonsensical tools. Of course they optimize for nonsense.
A human could search for different variations too, but they are average in average and have no the expertise to install a regex-able viewer. It's stupid little things like this that prevent them from doing their job better, not some systemic issue of their own.
> They are not idiots, they just have piles of data and nonsensical tools.
Disagree.
Disagree.
I can see why. Of course a role that requires CTRL-F level of skills attracts low-skill-required resources to a "helper" subrole. But if you replace it with automation, true skills will remain and thrive. Not that I like them on emotional level, their job is to hire you as cheap as possible and demand as much as they can. But hey it's a market. Learn to negotiate and to plan ahead financially for search periods to avoid premature decision pitfalls.
Maybe I've not applied and worked with big enough companies, but I've never seen an HR person be helpful or in any way been aligned with my interests. This could be forgiven as they may well serve interests which are opposite to mine at times, but there are numerous times where HR representatives just (from what I can gather) pick suboptimal strategies to try and convince me to do something, be it remain or take up a job offer or anything else, i.e. I've yet to see an HR person successfully manage a human resource in an optimal way. And by that I mean that statistically the outcomes would be no different if it was a random person with normal communication skills doing the job of HR or if it was someone with training and experience.
> The way to fix the issue you describe is to educate HR people, not to try to apply technology to a non-tech problem.
I wish it was easier to do. At my first job after university (not my first job altogether) we initially had great rapport between "DCOps" and HR. To be honest, our group was rather... irreverent, which made it even more interesting that we had such great rapport (we had all the stereotypes going for us, including female-only HR team and basement-dwelling male-only sysadmins).
But thanks to great cooperation, HR would do basic filtering on things they actually checked with us about, then forwarded us the CVs unmodified to give our own opinion before deciding whether to go with it or not.
Unfortunately some time later head of HR ended up let go due to some conflict with C-level I believe, and things slowly reverted to the mean :(
I wish it was easier to do. At my first job after university (not my first job altogether) we initially had great rapport between "DCOps" and HR. To be honest, our group was rather... irreverent, which made it even more interesting that we had such great rapport (we had all the stereotypes going for us, including female-only HR team and basement-dwelling male-only sysadmins).
But thanks to great cooperation, HR would do basic filtering on things they actually checked with us about, then forwarded us the CVs unmodified to give our own opinion before deciding whether to go with it or not.
Unfortunately some time later head of HR ended up let go due to some conflict with C-level I believe, and things slowly reverted to the mean :(
That's very nice to think about but in the real world if people don't match some exact keywords they get thrown away.
This isn't the "real world" you're referring to here -- it's the fin-de-big-tech bubble world where everyone and their dog is not only sold, smack-down drunk on the idea that Algorithms and Data are the Solution to Your Problems. They aren't of course -- it's just a giant hornswoggle. This "world" needs to end, and it needs to end soon.
My belief is that it will. But until it does, companies that run crappy ATSs (like there's any other kind) deserve the buzzword-gurgling, keyword-dropping candidate pool get. And developers who get "rejected" by these companies should be grateful for the sublime gift of this rejection -- and for the opportunity to laser focus on companies and teams that use their heads to hire, rather than a fleet of bots.
Snark aside - hiring managers that actually read resumes (and yes, actually at least skim each and every one -- really it ain't that hard) are golden to work for (other factors being equal). Really, you don't want to waste your time with companies that have drunken the ATS kool-aid. Really you don't.
That said, however:
HR is looking for "node.js" but you wrote it like "nodejs"? Though luck pal, bye.
It's "Node.js" with a dot. If you spell it "nodejs", that's a serious red flag and you shouldn't be surprised if it gets you automatically discarded -- even by a human reviewer.
That's what resumes used to be, after all -- a kind of a take-home test where you really do have enough time (and perfect knowledge) to get everything 100 percent right. And also a test of your awareness of the fact that, yes, in critical business communications at least -- this level of correctness does matter, and it matters a lot.
This isn't the "real world" you're referring to here -- it's the fin-de-big-tech bubble world where everyone and their dog is not only sold, smack-down drunk on the idea that Algorithms and Data are the Solution to Your Problems. They aren't of course -- it's just a giant hornswoggle. This "world" needs to end, and it needs to end soon.
My belief is that it will. But until it does, companies that run crappy ATSs (like there's any other kind) deserve the buzzword-gurgling, keyword-dropping candidate pool get. And developers who get "rejected" by these companies should be grateful for the sublime gift of this rejection -- and for the opportunity to laser focus on companies and teams that use their heads to hire, rather than a fleet of bots.
Snark aside - hiring managers that actually read resumes (and yes, actually at least skim each and every one -- really it ain't that hard) are golden to work for (other factors being equal). Really, you don't want to waste your time with companies that have drunken the ATS kool-aid. Really you don't.
That said, however:
HR is looking for "node.js" but you wrote it like "nodejs"? Though luck pal, bye.
It's "Node.js" with a dot. If you spell it "nodejs", that's a serious red flag and you shouldn't be surprised if it gets you automatically discarded -- even by a human reviewer.
That's what resumes used to be, after all -- a kind of a take-home test where you really do have enough time (and perfect knowledge) to get everything 100 percent right. And also a test of your awareness of the fact that, yes, in critical business communications at least -- this level of correctness does matter, and it matters a lot.
> It's "Node.js" with a dot. If you spell it "nodejs", that's a serious red flag and you shouldn't be surprised if it gets you automatically discarded -- even by a human reviewer.
Yikes. “It’s not JavaScript it’s Ecmascript! What a RED FLAG.”
Yikes. “It’s not JavaScript it’s Ecmascript! What a RED FLAG.”
The difference is that JavaScript is the name of an actual language. Where nodejs isn't the actual name of the project. The Node.js project advertises itself as a "JavaScript runtime." Both JavaScript and EMCAScript are acceptable.
I would argue that JavaScript is somewhat of an unofficial name since it is an Oracle trademark.
https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/8d0bg2/oracle_o...
https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/8d0bg2/oracle_o...
[deleted]
“It’s not JavaScript it’s Ecmascript!
Not comparable.
Not comparable.
I’d say they are. Who cares if I write “Nodejs” or “Node.js”? The reader knows exactly what I meant, and that’s what matters. Anything else is just needless pedantry.
It's not about communication, here. You want to be absolutely perfect in your CV, to prove that you've spent time and effort making it perfect. It serves no other purpose but to show your determination. If communication was the point, a long rant in which you write "yeah I worked with node.js, it was cool lol" would be OK as well, after all it gets the point across doesn't it?
There is no "absolutely perfect", especially in such a subjective topic as résumés.
Mine certainly isn't, it's like me. Worked out so far.
But then again, I wouldn't want to work for most companies.
Pecunia olet!
Mine certainly isn't, it's like me. Worked out so far.
But then again, I wouldn't want to work for most companies.
Pecunia olet!
Neither would I want to work for most companies, but I don’t want my options reduced by making stupid mistakes on my CV.
The things is -- they ding you for a whole range of other things, all the time. Like not working for the right kind of company in your last job, failing their bullshit tests, or heaven forbid, having a "gap" in your resume. As if having a life (or a family member that needs taking care of) is to be seen as thumbing your nose at their sacred cause.
At least fixing stupid mistakes in your resume is well within your control, and (unlike cramming for their tests) doesn't take hours and hours of your time.
At least fixing stupid mistakes in your resume is well within your control, and (unlike cramming for their tests) doesn't take hours and hours of your time.
That's fine. I see it like this: If there is a stupid mistake, it shows that I am a fallible human after all. (I tend to think that I don't have stupid mistakes in my CV)
But my CV also shows part of my character, mainly the fun part. If that is deemed unprofessional by a company, I immediately know they are no good fit for me.
The thing is: As with every relationship, they are two way streets. I am not a beggar as a potential employee, neither am I king. We see eye to eye or not at all.
But my CV also shows part of my character, mainly the fun part. If that is deemed unprofessional by a company, I immediately know they are no good fit for me.
The thing is: As with every relationship, they are two way streets. I am not a beggar as a potential employee, neither am I king. We see eye to eye or not at all.
I'm an OCD-ish perfectionist (especially in writing) if the world has ever seen one, to the point where I didn't stark working on my bachelor's or my master's thesis before I had exactly the markdown + latex setup + custom typography that I wanted. So I would definitely internally cringe if I'd see typos like this.
But to reject a candidate just because they're not the same kind of pedant that I am would be quite unreasonable IMHO. As long as the whole thing isn't littered with typos or formatting issues, that's just something I wouldn't pay too much attention to. Not everyone needs to be the person to dot every i and cross every t.
Also, I really want to see the HR department that can confidently reject or even mark down a candidate when most of the writing I've seen from most people in any company I've ever been (including from HR departments, PMs or executives) has been "meh" at best, and full of errors or at least awkward language more often than not. For better or worse, writing skills are not necessarily something we tend to select for in the industry.
But to reject a candidate just because they're not the same kind of pedant that I am would be quite unreasonable IMHO. As long as the whole thing isn't littered with typos or formatting issues, that's just something I wouldn't pay too much attention to. Not everyone needs to be the person to dot every i and cross every t.
Also, I really want to see the HR department that can confidently reject or even mark down a candidate when most of the writing I've seen from most people in any company I've ever been (including from HR departments, PMs or executives) has been "meh" at best, and full of errors or at least awkward language more often than not. For better or worse, writing skills are not necessarily something we tend to select for in the industry.
It’s not about the fact but about how much you care. Don’t let your counterpart think.
Making such „mistakes“ actually shows quite a bit about the counterpart starting with correctness and precise communication.
Back then it drove me nuts when someone wrote „advanced in AngularJS 2“ - and it kept coming!
Making such „mistakes“ actually shows quite a bit about the counterpart starting with correctness and precise communication.
Back then it drove me nuts when someone wrote „advanced in AngularJS 2“ - and it kept coming!
As inconsistent as it is, "AngularJS" is the correct spelling and casing, that's probably why it kept coming. Just check the official website.
I think the point was that AngularJS is V1. Version 2 and beyond is just called “Angular”.
Just like if you write "alot" instead of "a lot" the reader knows exactly what you mean, and yet ...
But whatever. It's your life. You do you, and I'll do me.
But whatever. It's your life. You do you, and I'll do me.
> That's what resumes used to be, after all -- a kind of a take-home test where you really do have enough time (and perfect knowledge) to get everything 100 percent right.
The only thing this filters for is people who have been looking for a job for a long time and/or are people focused on presentation instead of content, good luck with that.
We’ve hired incredible engineers across that have had typos and major resume mistakes many times and they had no communications problems on the job.
A resume is a background/interests check for the hiring manager. Giving them a spell check is about as useful as measuring the ratio of times the letter ‘a’ appears relative to ‘e’.
> critical business communications at least -- this level of correctness does matter, and it matters a lot.
This sounds like someone who is unable to contextualize when that would be relevant. Unless you’re writing user documentation there are zero times in an engineer’s day-to-day communications where writing nodejs instead of “Node.js” would have any impact at all.
The only thing this filters for is people who have been looking for a job for a long time and/or are people focused on presentation instead of content, good luck with that.
We’ve hired incredible engineers across that have had typos and major resume mistakes many times and they had no communications problems on the job.
A resume is a background/interests check for the hiring manager. Giving them a spell check is about as useful as measuring the ratio of times the letter ‘a’ appears relative to ‘e’.
> critical business communications at least -- this level of correctness does matter, and it matters a lot.
This sounds like someone who is unable to contextualize when that would be relevant. Unless you’re writing user documentation there are zero times in an engineer’s day-to-day communications where writing nodejs instead of “Node.js” would have any impact at all.
Giving them a spell check is about as useful as measuring the ratio of times the letter ‘a’ appears relative to ‘e’.
I'll leave the matter of whether one should be expect resumes to be at least reasonably correct (in terms of spelling and grammar) or not - or what the threshold for "reasonably" should be on this front - to the side for now. It's obviously a question of taste, to a certain degree.
But sorry - what you're saying about the ratio of 'a' to 'e' makes no sense at all.
And on this front:
Unless you’re writing user documentation
I don't know what planet you live on -- but on my planet, good engineers write "user documentation" (in the sense of READMEs, docstrings, etc) and participate in mailing lists, do conference presentations, etc, all the time. And yes, while nobody is 100 percent perfect, consistently making a large number of gaffes (or more to the point: conveying an attitude that these things just don't matter; or that you're so hot that they shouldn't matter for you) in these contexts -- particularly when there there is plenty of time available to edit and review -- is definitely seen as a red flag, both in and outside the company.
For any company you'd want to work for, that is.
I'll leave the matter of whether one should be expect resumes to be at least reasonably correct (in terms of spelling and grammar) or not - or what the threshold for "reasonably" should be on this front - to the side for now. It's obviously a question of taste, to a certain degree.
But sorry - what you're saying about the ratio of 'a' to 'e' makes no sense at all.
And on this front:
Unless you’re writing user documentation
I don't know what planet you live on -- but on my planet, good engineers write "user documentation" (in the sense of READMEs, docstrings, etc) and participate in mailing lists, do conference presentations, etc, all the time. And yes, while nobody is 100 percent perfect, consistently making a large number of gaffes (or more to the point: conveying an attitude that these things just don't matter; or that you're so hot that they shouldn't matter for you) in these contexts -- particularly when there there is plenty of time available to edit and review -- is definitely seen as a red flag, both in and outside the company.
For any company you'd want to work for, that is.
Well.
These days I think I work at the best team I ever worked on and it seems I'm in the top two in spelling, it is almost as if the rest if the team is mildly dyslexic or doesn't care.
But they are nice to work with, smart and they make good code.
I'll take them 49 times out of 50 over some perfect in code and writing but nasty in person ex colleagues.
Even if I really really really need a specialist on hight performance <whatever it was, I can't add a dead giveaway here> I'd still try to look elsewhere first.
Edit:
... and those two ex colleagues? Their code was good but it wasn't perfect either.
These days I think I work at the best team I ever worked on and it seems I'm in the top two in spelling, it is almost as if the rest if the team is mildly dyslexic or doesn't care.
But they are nice to work with, smart and they make good code.
I'll take them 49 times out of 50 over some perfect in code and writing but nasty in person ex colleagues.
Even if I really really really need a specialist on hight performance <whatever it was, I can't add a dead giveaway here> I'd still try to look elsewhere first.
Edit:
... and those two ex colleagues? Their code was good but it wasn't perfect either.
Am 100 percent with you there - nice and basically decent to work with always trumps the willful disregard for these basic qualities. No matter how skilled they are, or their accomplishments.
> But sorry - what you're saying about the ratio of 'a' to 'e' makes no sense at all.
Sorry I confused you. Let me be clear, it’s not relevant at all to job performance. I would take someone with terrible spelling and punctuation who actually writes documentation over someone who writes half as much because they are obsessing over details like that.
> in the sense of READMEs, docstrings, et
These are generally for other developers. Developers do not get confused when they see “NodeJs” instead of “Node.js”. Do you know what point you were trying to make?
> is definitely seen as a red flag, both in and outside the company.
> For any company you'd want to work for, that is.
Not sure what kind of company you’re talking about, but it’s definitely not a tech company. Maybe Wall Street or something a little slower paced?
Sorry I confused you. Let me be clear, it’s not relevant at all to job performance. I would take someone with terrible spelling and punctuation who actually writes documentation over someone who writes half as much because they are obsessing over details like that.
> in the sense of READMEs, docstrings, et
These are generally for other developers. Developers do not get confused when they see “NodeJs” instead of “Node.js”. Do you know what point you were trying to make?
> is definitely seen as a red flag, both in and outside the company.
> For any company you'd want to work for, that is.
Not sure what kind of company you’re talking about, but it’s definitely not a tech company. Maybe Wall Street or something a little slower paced?
It's not about communication, or spelling, or grammar, it's about attention to detail.
I've seen my fair share of resumes and hired my fair share of people, and I've come to the conclusion that sloppy, error-ridden, CVs are a sign of a lack of attention to detail.
Here's a candidate with all the time in the world, and huge motivation, and they still can't complete this task correctly. It's not a good look.
I'm not saying a single error I'd a deal-breaker, but it puts the applicant on the back foot. No doubt many of my rejects are quality engineers, but engineering, and software development are all about details.
I've seen my fair share of resumes and hired my fair share of people, and I've come to the conclusion that sloppy, error-ridden, CVs are a sign of a lack of attention to detail.
Here's a candidate with all the time in the world, and huge motivation, and they still can't complete this task correctly. It's not a good look.
I'm not saying a single error I'd a deal-breaker, but it puts the applicant on the back foot. No doubt many of my rejects are quality engineers, but engineering, and software development are all about details.
> Here's a candidate with all the time in the world, and huge motivation,
You are woefully out of touch with the job market. And I’m saying this as someone who worked as a hiring manager at one of the most applied to tech companies in the world.
You are woefully out of touch with the job market. And I’m saying this as someone who worked as a hiring manager at one of the most applied to tech companies in the world.
The motivation might not be "huge" at all, considering you might not be expecting any response, might have done 10 of these in the last hour, pay may not even be acceptable, etc.
Why can you assume a candidate has 'all the time in the world?'
A job hunt typically takes weeks or months of calendar time, and dozens of hours of clock time. So if a candidate has good management of his time and effort, he can budget one of those hours to improve the attention to detail of his CV.
Being sloppy writing code, though, can be disastrous.
I know I've rejected resumes for tech writing positions that contained spelling errors. I would hope a tech writer would at least use a spell chekker.
I know I've rejected resumes for tech writing positions that contained spelling errors. I would hope a tech writer would at least use a spell chekker.
I am still not sure if it's Javascript or JavaScript after all these years )
>It's "Node.js" with a dot. If you spell it "nodejs", that's a serious red flag and you shouldn't be surprised if it gets you automatically discarded -- even by a human reviewer.
Oh, really!? I'll be very glad NOT to work at a company that throws aways candidates because of such triviliaties.
Oh, really!? I'll be very glad NOT to work at a company that throws aways candidates because of such triviliaties.
Even back in the era when reading resumes and hiring was a manual human process, the standard advice was that resumes should be perfect. Nicely formatted, with no spelling or grammatical errors. You have ample time to think about the content, to proofread it yourself, and to have someone else proofread it. It's the first impression the potential employer has of you, no reason to not make an effort.
That is advice to Jon seeker.
It is never advice toward hiring manager. It was always criticized as not smart and leading to many false rejects.
It is never advice toward hiring manager. It was always criticized as not smart and leading to many false rejects.
You're right, but I wonder how many resumes a job seeker submitted 30 years ago compared with today.
Probably 8 to 15, versus 80 to 100 now.
I'm not sure that's true at all. Coming out of school pre-Web when real information was much harder to come by (even job postings), I sprayed and prayed a lot of resumes to HR departments. (And my first engineering job came through one of those.)
Perfectionism and pedantism are good qualities some teams are after, it is unsurprising that some people would reject a candidate who did not bother “properly” writing the name of the technology they use.
nodejs came out on 2009, I've used it non-stop since then and probably built close to 100 things with it. I am on the author's list of both node and v8.
I write it as nodejs because that's how I got used to it on the mailing lists and several places that I frequent.
If a "team" decides not to hire me because of the latter, then ... thanks, I guess?
I write it as nodejs because that's how I got used to it on the mailing lists and several places that I frequent.
If a "team" decides not to hire me because of the latter, then ... thanks, I guess?
I guess I'll backpedal at this point and acknowledge that that "nodejs" may in fact be not only a correct and accepted spelling -- but in fact a hip "in-the-know" spelling -- within a certain community.
But at this point we're getting into the territory of what's seen as a positive in some niche communities may not be seen as a positive signal outside that community. And in business communications, what masters most is knowing who your audience is, and how your message is received.
But at this point we're getting into the territory of what's seen as a positive in some niche communities may not be seen as a positive signal outside that community. And in business communications, what masters most is knowing who your audience is, and how your message is received.
Then you being outside the community, have done nothing but filter out the best candidates by focusing on the wrong details under the banner of “attention to detail”
It’s ego.
What is the résumé’s job? To convey experience and work in a positive light. A small typo that may incidentally be the correct spelling shouldn’t derail that if the goal is to hire the most talented people.
It’s ego.
What is the résumé’s job? To convey experience and work in a positive light. A small typo that may incidentally be the correct spelling shouldn’t derail that if the goal is to hire the most talented people.
Again, I do stand corrected.
To my defense, I was going by my Bayesian prior for certain language names for which one could be 100 percent sure there was no alternate accepted spelling or capitalization.
So if one put JAVA or PERL on their resume, that would generate a definite "pass" signal.
To my defense, I was going by my Bayesian prior for certain language names for which one could be 100 percent sure there was no alternate accepted spelling or capitalization.
So if one put JAVA or PERL on their resume, that would generate a definite "pass" signal.
Agree or disagree, this is great feedback for job seekers. Spelling is often used as a filter.
What are some other signals that act as red flags for a potential applicant in your hiring flow?
Well another major turn-off would be: a "primary skills" section that mentions 30 different random applications / protocols that one might have been incidentally exposed to for a week or 2 at some job ... 15 years ago. No one can be expert-level in all of these things. Just tell us the top 3-6 that really matter and which define you.
Or even if it's just 1 or 2. It's infinitely better to hire someone who is in fact really solid at what they say they know, than someone who tries to spam you with every random keyword they've been exposed to in the hope that you won't drill down and ask them any hard questions about most of them.
That, and skill listings that don't pass the "apples and orange" test. For example:
Or even if it's just 1 or 2. It's infinitely better to hire someone who is in fact really solid at what they say they know, than someone who tries to spam you with every random keyword they've been exposed to in the hope that you won't drill down and ask them any hard questions about most of them.
That, and skill listings that don't pass the "apples and orange" test. For example:
Programming languages: Java, Perl, PHP, XML, HTML, CSS, Bootstrap
Both great points that can be easy to overlook, especially once one gets into their career a bit.
Know yourself, and know your audience.
Know yourself, and know your audience.
He was clearly being pedant, not perfectionist. I've never heard of a team looking for pedant people. I'm curious to hear your definition of the word.
Over focus on mind numbing details that don’t appreciably move you closer to your goal.
In some software, say, nuclear warhead tracking software, you want those people.
In some software, say, nuclear warhead tracking software, you want those people.
Something tells me they could easily focus their attention on something not necessarily related to the most critical parts of the project. They could be very pedantic (and often are) about some irrelevant thing.
I have a lot of merge requests in some pretty big projects correcting SASS to Sass in the code and documentation. I'm surprised no one ever seems to question their notion of spelling proper names when it's a quick web search away.
I think you might be conflating two things:
- resume keyword scan (automated or otherwise)
- leetcode interviews
The former I think you’re spot-on. If you’re serious about hiring, some qualified to do so needs to be reading resumes.
The latter is complicated. I tend to agree that the industry has over-pivoted to “dynamic programming whiteboard puzzle” as the LSAT of high-paying software work. But while most seem to agree that leetcode interviews suck in tons of ways, something that is unambiguously superior seems to be an open problem.
And some algorithms and data structure testing is important for hard software work. Even choosing the right library requires some basics. Is every SWE at Amazon implementing CS papers every month? No, clearly not. But unless machine resources are free in your domain, brute-force doesn’t always work.
FANG people do in fact get elitist about their CMU educations. But there’s another crowd that throws the baby out with the bath water: “I solve business problems, not reverse linked lists.” Well, what kind of business problems don’t involve some computation?
It’s a balance that our industry seems to still be trying to find.
- resume keyword scan (automated or otherwise)
- leetcode interviews
The former I think you’re spot-on. If you’re serious about hiring, some qualified to do so needs to be reading resumes.
The latter is complicated. I tend to agree that the industry has over-pivoted to “dynamic programming whiteboard puzzle” as the LSAT of high-paying software work. But while most seem to agree that leetcode interviews suck in tons of ways, something that is unambiguously superior seems to be an open problem.
And some algorithms and data structure testing is important for hard software work. Even choosing the right library requires some basics. Is every SWE at Amazon implementing CS papers every month? No, clearly not. But unless machine resources are free in your domain, brute-force doesn’t always work.
FANG people do in fact get elitist about their CMU educations. But there’s another crowd that throws the baby out with the bath water: “I solve business problems, not reverse linked lists.” Well, what kind of business problems don’t involve some computation?
It’s a balance that our industry seems to still be trying to find.
So, when I see the ads with XML misspelled XLM like XLM and XSLT experience wanted - or similar stuff that happens every now and then - I should spin up a new CV and replace instances of XML with XLM?
on edit: before people come in with not wanting to work for a company that would make such a stupid mistake, first off I believe mistakes sometimes happen, and second Henry Thompson leader of the XML Schema working group, had the subtitle of his LinkedIn page saying something like he was an expert in XLM for at least a year (I should really have taken a screen shot) so I mean I think it would just as silly to not work someplace because they made a mistake as it would for them to screen you out for making a mistake.
on edit: before people come in with not wanting to work for a company that would make such a stupid mistake, first off I believe mistakes sometimes happen, and second Henry Thompson leader of the XML Schema working group, had the subtitle of his LinkedIn page saying something like he was an expert in XLM for at least a year (I should really have taken a screen shot) so I mean I think it would just as silly to not work someplace because they made a mistake as it would for them to screen you out for making a mistake.
These are true:
- hiring managers that actually read resumes are golden to work for
- a test of your awareness of the fact that, yes, in critical business communications at least -- this level of correctness does matter, and it matters a lot.
And for people who want to work in startup land, it’s an ideal.
Once a company gets past 40 or so people, though, ATS adoption increases. And 150+ employees without an ATS are rare. It’s just that the volume of candidates and interview processes that need to be managed require there be some software to manage the workflow.
And for people who want to work in startup land, it’s an ideal.
Once a company gets past 40 or so people, though, ATS adoption increases. And 150+ employees without an ATS are rare. It’s just that the volume of candidates and interview processes that need to be managed require there be some software to manage the workflow.
> It's "Node.js" with a dot. If you spell it "nodejs", that's a serious red flag and you shouldn't be surprised if it gets you automatically discarded -- even by a human reviewer.
Best example of someone I wouldn't want to work for ever
Best example of someone I wouldn't want to work for ever
And that's the beauty of it - it's a perfect filter, both ways.
The question is does that really bring something good, either way, or is it just a whim. Some HR check the shape of your ears, and if it doesn't match some patterns, they skip.
perfect filter, both ways
Two ways of three. Some innocent person may accidentally put Node.js in their resume and get hired.
perfect filter, both ways
Two ways of three. Some innocent person may accidentally put Node.js in their resume and get hired.
Google has 411m hits for Node.js and 66m for nodejs. I'd guess somewhere in the 66 million people calling it nodejs, we could find a real diamond in the rough if we heard them out at the next interview!
That's exactly what I mean -- people believe in Big Data so much these days that when something appears in a sufficient portion of search results, it must have actual validity.
Isn't that the same as natural language? "Bone Apple Tea" gets corrected both because it's wrong, and because many people know so. "Begging the Question" is used incorrectly _so frequently_ that even dictionaries have come to accept the incorrect usage as an alternative. It's now correct-ish just because it's popular.
So if Node.js has that many more hits than nodejs, it's not surprising that some people see it as canonical.
Hearing the context of this conversation, though, I can see that "nodejs" in your resume is a signal to senior peers within that community--others who are "in the know". That may be a useful filter.
So if Node.js has that many more hits than nodejs, it's not surprising that some people see it as canonical.
Hearing the context of this conversation, though, I can see that "nodejs" in your resume is a signal to senior peers within that community--others who are "in the know". That may be a useful filter.
As an aside, I never thought "begging the question" is used incorrectly because it is easy to tell whether or not someone is referring to the fallacy based on the context. If the meaning can be understood, then that's what matters.
It's only a matter of time before “alot” is accepted shudder
Absolutely. We typically receive hundreds of resumes for every position. The easiest way to winnow them down is to throw out any with spelling or grammar errors. It is astonishing how high a percentage include these errors. There is absolutely no excuse to have spelling and grammar errors in your resume if you are serious about trying to find work.
Some people aren't native speakers. Do they really need to know how to spell perfectly to work for you?
We rarely receive resumes from people who are not native speakers. It is the native speaker who make the worst spelling and grammar errors. It is so strange in this era when every computer has a spell checker and grammar checker. They aren’t perfect, but most of the errors are so egregious that they clearly aren’t even trying.
FYI Not an English native speaker
It’s a document sent to tons of people. Revised by tons of hiring managers. Can’t you spend 5 minute looking at a dictionary? If you cant be bothered to spend 5 minutes researching this for an important document, what makes me think that you will spend 5 minutes trying to be good at your job. Lack of care on your resume is lack of care on lots of other things.
It’s a document sent to tons of people. Revised by tons of hiring managers. Can’t you spend 5 minute looking at a dictionary? If you cant be bothered to spend 5 minutes researching this for an important document, what makes me think that you will spend 5 minutes trying to be good at your job. Lack of care on your resume is lack of care on lots of other things.
Companies don't seem to treat it like an important document. I can't tell you how many times an interviewer seemed to be reading my resume for the very first time during the interview itself...
As the interviewer, in several places I've worked, I'm usually handed the resume 10 minutes before the interview along with a couple of questions my manager wants me to ask. By that point, it's gone through HR, managers, etc. You're getting hired if you can get past me and whomever I'm interviewing with.
There was even one time they forgot to give me the resume... that was probably the funniest interview ever. They got the job too.
There was even one time they forgot to give me the resume... that was probably the funniest interview ever. They got the job too.
On the flip side, I do technical interviews (I am new to it though), and I spend about half an hour preparing for an interview including going through the CV that made it to me (and making notes/preparing questions) and researching the candidate based on what I see in it (e.g following links, etc)
I do the same thing. The CV is typically made available to me a couple of days before the interview, and I usually take a look at it the day before. Obviously I can't really know how carefully it gets scanned before they decide to arrange the technical interview (which is where I step in).
If you cant be bothered to spend 5 minutes researching this for an important document, what makes me think that you will spend 5 minutes trying to be good at your job
Bullshit. There are many things person may care about and many things they may not. If this position is unrelated to professional writing, it's just irrelevant. Are you questioning their abstract ability to "care" and trying to translate spelling care to job care? Bad news, it doesn't translate (aside from the fact that ideal perfectionists can't get shit done ever; your best candidate still figures out the ideal form of his resume and is too anxious to click "publish").
Bullshit. There are many things person may care about and many things they may not. If this position is unrelated to professional writing, it's just irrelevant. Are you questioning their abstract ability to "care" and trying to translate spelling care to job care? Bad news, it doesn't translate (aside from the fact that ideal perfectionists can't get shit done ever; your best candidate still figures out the ideal form of his resume and is too anxious to click "publish").
Native speakers are the worst at pointing typos in my experience because they are so sure of themselves.
Literally every time I have submitted an (academic) paper at least one US reviewer had to point out I made several spelling mistakes when I actually used the British spelling (consistently) instead of the US spelling.
Sorry my man but it is called "English", I think I am allowed to spell things like they do in England.
Literally every time I have submitted an (academic) paper at least one US reviewer had to point out I made several spelling mistakes when I actually used the British spelling (consistently) instead of the US spelling.
Sorry my man but it is called "English", I think I am allowed to spell things like they do in England.
> Native speakers are the worst at pointing typos in my experience because they are so sure of themselves.
Agree. And yet, they are still the ones that mix up "your" and "you're", "then" and "them" and "than"
Agree. And yet, they are still the ones that mix up "your" and "you're", "then" and "them" and "than"
Some people aren't native speakers. Do they really need to know how to spell perfectly to work for you?
Perfectly, no. But in formal communications, they need to show that they're at least making an effort to get things reasonably correct. And if it matters enough, you can always find a native-speaking friend to review your resume or cover letter for you.
(Source: been there, done that, applying for jobs in other countries).
Perfectly, no. But in formal communications, they need to show that they're at least making an effort to get things reasonably correct. And if it matters enough, you can always find a native-speaking friend to review your resume or cover letter for you.
(Source: been there, done that, applying for jobs in other countries).
I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to filter out a candidate that can't be bothered to spent 3 minutes and run their resume through a spell checker. It tells you something important about the candidate.
Of course, it is also reasonable to be forgiving on resume errors. It depends on the culture and team you're trying to build.
Of course, it is also reasonable to be forgiving on resume errors. It depends on the culture and team you're trying to build.
Knowing what the red wriggly lines mean is a start.
From my experience, however, it's the native English speakers who spel the worse.
From my experience, however, it's the native English speakers who spel the worse.
Speaking of red squiggly lines in Word/MS products. Is it just me or has the grammar check gotten incredibly worse the past 2 years? It keeps complaining about odd grammar forms and suggesting I replace perfectly valid word-structures with shorter ones? The one I encounter most frequently is the suggestion to replace "in order to" with just "to", which is incredibly frustrating as they mean two different things entirely.
You'll get plenty of words flagged in a tech resume. Besides, spel chequers werk grate.
That's why gawd invented spell checkers.
Besides, I've noticed that ESL speakers make different kinds of mistakes than sloppy native speakers do.
Besides, I've noticed that ESL speakers make different kinds of mistakes than sloppy native speakers do.
> That's why gawd invented spell checkers.
All of the lines below have red squiggly lines under them in my browser's text area:
- Qt Quick
- Datalog
- Datomic
- TensorFlow
> I've noticed that ESL speakers make different kinds of mistakes than sloppy native speakers do.
I've never seen a non-native speaker writing "would of" or using "they're" instead of "their". On the other hand I can't count how many times I've skipped an article or used a wrong one somewhere (since my native language doesn't use them at all).
All of the lines below have red squiggly lines under them in my browser's text area:
- Qt Quick
- Datalog
- Datomic
- TensorFlow
> I've noticed that ESL speakers make different kinds of mistakes than sloppy native speakers do.
I've never seen a non-native speaker writing "would of" or using "they're" instead of "their". On the other hand I can't count how many times I've skipped an article or used a wrong one somewhere (since my native language doesn't use them at all).
Yup. My wife learned her first word of English at 43, I've had plenty of time to see how one's mother tongue has a permanent effect on language. My interpretation of what I see:
She has internal word concepts. When the English words fit cleanly into her existing concepts it's easy. When two English words map into one word concept it's considerably harder, it took her a long time to correctly separate turn on from open (and turn off from close), but at least any given thing always goes the same way. In situations where that doesn't even work she will make frequent errors even to this day--do not trust her use of gender words.
She has internal word concepts. When the English words fit cleanly into her existing concepts it's easy. When two English words map into one word concept it's considerably harder, it took her a long time to correctly separate turn on from open (and turn off from close), but at least any given thing always goes the same way. In situations where that doesn't even work she will make frequent errors even to this day--do not trust her use of gender words.
Its not just big tech that does this. HR is also incompetent in academia and has similar practices at many institutions
Edit: oh, and also US state governments. there's a reason they're known for being incompetent, people job hop within months and get keywords on their resumes and nothing ever gets done
Edit: oh, and also US state governments. there's a reason they're known for being incompetent, people job hop within months and get keywords on their resumes and nothing ever gets done
Well said. It'll get to a human eventually, but the first step is pretty robotic anyway human or not. Let's dig up the legendary Facebook recruiter specifically looking for Unix experience.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15187874
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15187874
this level of pedantry is insane, I'm considering spelling it wrong on purpose to avoid this kind of environments
>> It's "Node.js" with a dot. If you spell it "nodejs", that's a serious red flag and you shouldn't be surprised if it gets you automatically discarded -- even by a human reviewer.
Haha and then they scream about labour shortage )
Haha and then they scream about labour shortage )
I kinda agree with you -- half the job as a programmer is being really tedious and paying attention to written text on a screen. If you can't reasonably review your resume and use spell check, it is not a great look.
It is Node.js®
Here is your pink slip. Don't call us
Here is your pink slip. Don't call us
Coming from someone who cant spell "tough luck". Lol
I review every single resume and applicant I hire. My experience tells me talent acquisition professionals don’t really know how to match and will often suggest poor matches and not bring forward odd fits with interesting backgrounds.
I get hundreds posting into some of the roles I’ve hired for and I’ve got to look at every single one in order to find a possible match. It generally takes me about 30 seconds to a minute to assess a resume. A kernel of interest stands out quickly or a smoke screen of buzz words tells me it’s the wrong candidate.
Algorithms aren’t a substitute for an active hiring manager being really interested in finding the right candidate to join their team.
I get hundreds posting into some of the roles I’ve hired for and I’ve got to look at every single one in order to find a possible match. It generally takes me about 30 seconds to a minute to assess a resume. A kernel of interest stands out quickly or a smoke screen of buzz words tells me it’s the wrong candidate.
Algorithms aren’t a substitute for an active hiring manager being really interested in finding the right candidate to join their team.
> HR is looking for "node.js" but you wrote it like "nodejs"? Though luck pal, bye. HR wants a "computer scientist" but you have a degree in "computer science"? Same, automatically discarded.
Wouldn't those issues be more likely to occur as a result of automated processing? I imagine that most humans who deal with technical hiring would guess that "node.js" and "nodejs" are probably the same thing.
Wouldn't those issues be more likely to occur as a result of automated processing? I imagine that most humans who deal with technical hiring would guess that "node.js" and "nodejs" are probably the same thing.
Most humans who deal with technical hiring think that "javascript" and "java" are probably the same thing
Can confirm - I spent a year doing C++ because the recruiter thought it was the same thing as C#.
Java ?? Java-Script ??? Which is which?
http://web.archive.org/web/20171002221201/http://www.jerkcit...
Originally published in October 2002 (almost 20 years ago from when this comment was made, for you future readers and time travellers).
http://web.archive.org/web/20171002221201/http://www.jerkcit...
Originally published in October 2002 (almost 20 years ago from when this comment was made, for you future readers and time travellers).
This sounds like an issue of syntax vs semantics, both of which would be relevant to building any sort of fair (as possible) data format.
A standard would include standard forms of expressing things--there shouldn't be anything (other than names) that doesn't appear in their dictionary.
> That's very nice to think about but in the real world if people don't match some exact keywords they get thrown away. HR is looking for "node.js" but you wrote it like "nodejs"? Though luck pal, bye. HR wants a "computer scientist" but you have a degree in "computer science"? Same, automatically discarded
I'm sure this happened somewhere at some point in time, but IMO it's becoming a myth blown out of proportion.
I've never actually worked at a tech company that had any sort of automatic resume filtering software. As a hiring manager, we didn't even have HR pre-screening resumes for us. If we did have recruiters, they were competent and incentivized to find good candidates (e.g. wouldn't be unnecessarily rejecting good candidates because they were missing exact spellings of keywords)
It would seem ludicrous in 2022 and this hiring crunch for a tech company (one that you'd actually want to work for) to arbitrarily filter out resumes based on incomplete keyword searching.
I'm sure this happened somewhere at some point in time, but IMO it's becoming a myth blown out of proportion.
I've never actually worked at a tech company that had any sort of automatic resume filtering software. As a hiring manager, we didn't even have HR pre-screening resumes for us. If we did have recruiters, they were competent and incentivized to find good candidates (e.g. wouldn't be unnecessarily rejecting good candidates because they were missing exact spellings of keywords)
It would seem ludicrous in 2022 and this hiring crunch for a tech company (one that you'd actually want to work for) to arbitrarily filter out resumes based on incomplete keyword searching.
I co-founded an ATS company and I can say that we were never asked for, nor provided, any functionality to automatically screen candidates out based on keyword filters (though candidate answers to actual questions like "Do you 5 years experience with node.js?" are often used to automatically screen out).
That said, I have heard this often enough that some people must do it. I can't imagine why though, as it takes only a few seconds for a human to scan a resume. Even at 10 seconds per resume (a conservative estimate), that means the human could screen 360 resumes per hour.
That said, I have heard this often enough that some people must do it. I can't imagine why though, as it takes only a few seconds for a human to scan a resume. Even at 10 seconds per resume (a conservative estimate), that means the human could screen 360 resumes per hour.
Where do these resumes in the ATS come from? Sourcing tends to use searches or keywords, which “filter” by not selecting in the first place. Applicant trackers tend to be a few steps downstream of that, so wouldn’t need to filter.
Based on experience at firms with on the order of 1:1 applicants to hires up to 10,000:1 applicants to hires, I’d agree most such tools are not present at most companies, as they tend to be used from ratios of 100:1 and up.
On the other hand, while most companies might not have or use such tools, the more jobs a company has, the more likely they are to have some form of selection or filtering in the pipeline.
Based on experience at firms with on the order of 1:1 applicants to hires up to 10,000:1 applicants to hires, I’d agree most such tools are not present at most companies, as they tend to be used from ratios of 100:1 and up.
On the other hand, while most companies might not have or use such tools, the more jobs a company has, the more likely they are to have some form of selection or filtering in the pipeline.
I’ve interviewed the CEOs of many of the largest ATSs for Ladders News, and while there is no automated system, the tools do exist for a company to screen in this basis.
But none of the ATSs really collect great data on how many of their customers use them in their core processes. From observing actual, heavy duty recruiter and HR usage at Ladders, I suspect it is not very many.
These are people people after all, and they are not great at writing REGEX style queries to find only the precisely correct resumes they are looking for. You also need to remember that they are frequently working on novel searches each week, and wouldn’t have the confidence or the capability to craft such searches.
But none of the ATSs really collect great data on how many of their customers use them in their core processes. From observing actual, heavy duty recruiter and HR usage at Ladders, I suspect it is not very many.
These are people people after all, and they are not great at writing REGEX style queries to find only the precisely correct resumes they are looking for. You also need to remember that they are frequently working on novel searches each week, and wouldn’t have the confidence or the capability to craft such searches.
Resume “filtering” != resume “selecting”
Tech companies doing recruiting of any meaningful volume are indeed generally using searches or matches of some kind at the start of the funnel.
Tech companies doing recruiting of any meaningful volume are indeed generally using searches or matches of some kind at the start of the funnel.
[deleted]
I'm not sure if I'd mind that. If HR is made up of robots that stupid, that sounds like a terrible company to work for.
A standard format wouldn't solve the problems you described. There's no comprehensive list of frameworks and programming languages, let alone for types of experience outside computer science. The data would be structured, but HR would still throw out the bits of data that need to be filled in manually.
A standard format wouldn't solve the problems you described. There's no comprehensive list of frameworks and programming languages, let alone for types of experience outside computer science. The data would be structured, but HR would still throw out the bits of data that need to be filled in manually.
It varies. There is a reason there is some level dislike for HR cohorts. Keyword bingo is one of those things.
Minor anecdote incoming. I applied to a company A. It was a fit. I think I used the right keywords. Zero response. I talked with my buddy there. She talked with hiring manager. I got hired by company A. I later found out HR was unhappy, because it undermined their 'process' - such as it is.
There just has to be a better way to do this when compared to things as they are now.
Minor anecdote incoming. I applied to a company A. It was a fit. I think I used the right keywords. Zero response. I talked with my buddy there. She talked with hiring manager. I got hired by company A. I later found out HR was unhappy, because it undermined their 'process' - such as it is.
There just has to be a better way to do this when compared to things as they are now.
Going direct to a hiring manager is always the best route to the job.
Any standardized process will lack fidelity and excellence in specific cases. Or maybe even in all cases, when the company has made the trade off for cost or speed over quality.
But that’s what big company life is like, and that’s why they have standardized processes. Because even with the errors, in aggregate, it works out better for the business.
Any standardized process will lack fidelity and excellence in specific cases. Or maybe even in all cases, when the company has made the trade off for cost or speed over quality.
But that’s what big company life is like, and that’s why they have standardized processes. Because even with the errors, in aggregate, it works out better for the business.
Do you really care that you made HR unhappy though? Seems like you shouldn't, the company/team management is probably happy to pursue references over the funnel of random candidates, and the unhappy HR staffer is better off learning from the experience.
Not really is the truthful answer. The job in question had my best boss so far, so upsetting HR drone was a necessary evil in retrospect. I just dislike making people upset if it can be avoided. In my line of work, I do not get to make a ton of friends along the way. And who knows where that drone might end up in 10 years.
Do you really care that you made HR unhappy though?
Fundamentally it does kind of suck to have to put up people in your environment who are "unhappy" with you, or the fact that you snuck in there -- not because you don't belong there, but because of their own basic ignorance as to how things actually work.
Not that you can't grit your teeth and live with it - it's a job after all, and that's what you get paid for. But still, it does kind of suck.
Fundamentally it does kind of suck to have to put up people in your environment who are "unhappy" with you, or the fact that you snuck in there -- not because you don't belong there, but because of their own basic ignorance as to how things actually work.
Not that you can't grit your teeth and live with it - it's a job after all, and that's what you get paid for. But still, it does kind of suck.
I believe I understand your point – therefore I would like to take this opportunity to channel something that 'patio11 wrote on Twitter many years ago:
“Do not send in a job application before you have an actual human being who has expressed enthusiasm for reading or forwarding it.”[0]
I believe this is sound advice, and the pitfalls you mentioned was probably the reasons that he gave this advice.
[0] https://twitter.com/patio11/status/770807498802540544
“Do not send in a job application before you have an actual human being who has expressed enthusiasm for reading or forwarding it.”[0]
I believe this is sound advice, and the pitfalls you mentioned was probably the reasons that he gave this advice.
[0] https://twitter.com/patio11/status/770807498802540544
That's a good advice but probably for the top X percent in their industry who have a luxury to choose their employer - not everyone is in this position.
It's not about picking your employer so much as it is about getting past the outer layer and in touch with an interested human who can champion you through the rest of the process. In the absence of a pre-existing relationship, a good recruiter is invaluable for this.
Recruiters can definitely be a good way. That’s how I landed, like, nearly every job I have ever been offered.
Networking and reaching out to people at interesting companies is another way.
You will probably still have to write a cover letter and send in your résumé. But if you have someone on the inside who will mention to the hiring manager that, ”hey, you should check out Jane’s application” it will probably make a great deal of difference compared to just applying and hoping for the best.
And please folks, remember that FAANG is not the only game in town. There are lots and lots and lots of other companies out there, and many of them also pay well since they need to compete with FAANG to at least some extent.
Networking and reaching out to people at interesting companies is another way.
You will probably still have to write a cover letter and send in your résumé. But if you have someone on the inside who will mention to the hiring manager that, ”hey, you should check out Jane’s application” it will probably make a great deal of difference compared to just applying and hoping for the best.
And please folks, remember that FAANG is not the only game in town. There are lots and lots and lots of other companies out there, and many of them also pay well since they need to compete with FAANG to at least some extent.
It is easier than ever to contact a recruiter who works for the company on linked in instead of applying without any kind of referral
Indeed, I first heard this advice in the form: Don't submit a resume until you are sure you have the job.
I remember the HR chief of [famous company] complaining to me that she'd already been ordered to offer me a job, and needed a resume to check her bureaucratic boxen.
TBH that sounds a little extreme in the other direction.
I’ve gotten many good jobs with a “cold” application. If you have a fairly solid background the hearing back rate is easily over 50% for those
I have to agree, I have a lot of respect for McKenzie but this advice seems unwise. I've landed four jobs (including my longest-lasting gig to date) by sending in resumes to job listings without knowing anyone internally.
That’s great! But many people never hear back from cold applications, so that’s why I felt the need to mention that quote.
This is really not an issue. If the company as such a dumb HR department on automatic mode, I’m glad I’ll never be hired there.
But to be honest, I’ve never seen so stupid HR people. Like a lot of people, they have goals to reach and they’ll happily accept an interview from any CV as long as there are computer-related keywords and roughly the required experience.
HRs are one of the most important department when it comes to a company potential shitiness. So I’m glad they have the power to kick you from the hiring process for stupid reasons.
But to be honest, I’ve never seen so stupid HR people. Like a lot of people, they have goals to reach and they’ll happily accept an interview from any CV as long as there are computer-related keywords and roughly the required experience.
HRs are one of the most important department when it comes to a company potential shitiness. So I’m glad they have the power to kick you from the hiring process for stupid reasons.
I asked a tech recruiter once how long he looked at a resume before deciding to trash it or file it. He said 2 seconds.
He said he looked at about 1000 resumes a week. After a while, you can tell in 2 seconds if it is worth pursuing or not.
He said he looked at about 1000 resumes a week. After a while, you can tell in 2 seconds if it is worth pursuing or not.
> If anything, a standard format would at least allow people to classify themselves/others correctly and without ambiguity.
Except it doesn't, because a lot of things in life doesn't fit in that boxes that well.
You might not have experience in node.js, but in JS and some of the node.js-alike server side VMs.
Even just a "degree in computer science" can mean many things. Furthermore you might have something which for the position is "equivalent", like a "master of science in cognitive systems with a specialization on AI" which contained a lot of CS courses, and maybe also some pr-axis experience. Or you just started working as a programming free lancer with 16. Or ...
Furthermore a resume is quite individualistic, beyond just the raw content it contains. How that content is represented can sometimes give you hints, about what kind of questions you want to ask during an interview.
I have seen a bunch of standardized forms for resumes some companies opted into, they _always_ caused endless problems.
Except it doesn't, because a lot of things in life doesn't fit in that boxes that well.
You might not have experience in node.js, but in JS and some of the node.js-alike server side VMs.
Even just a "degree in computer science" can mean many things. Furthermore you might have something which for the position is "equivalent", like a "master of science in cognitive systems with a specialization on AI" which contained a lot of CS courses, and maybe also some pr-axis experience. Or you just started working as a programming free lancer with 16. Or ...
Furthermore a resume is quite individualistic, beyond just the raw content it contains. How that content is represented can sometimes give you hints, about what kind of questions you want to ask during an interview.
I have seen a bunch of standardized forms for resumes some companies opted into, they _always_ caused endless problems.
This is why applying for jobs using a resume is a losing battle. Make connections, get introductions, get recommendations. Plenty of ways to explore new jobs without being resume 123 out of 500 who applied. No telling what arbitrary filtering criteria will knock you out of the competition. Absolutely no feedback on why you weren't considered.
This is a how things are handled at companies that get 500+ applications for each open position and/or are just incompetent. At smaller companies it is very likely that actual humans read a résumé without the keyword matching bullshit.
I’m curious if you have much evidence that this is common? I suspect it’s mostly a myth that is easy to believe (it can feel good to believe it because it means you were removed from the applicant pipeline because of stupid computer reasons rather than because you don’t appear to meet some bar to a human, even if that bar is a stupid thing like prestige) and oft repeated.
I definitely think it’s likely that most people on hn don’t work for companies that do this, but maybe hn just skews toward certain kinds of tech jobs.
I definitely think it’s likely that most people on hn don’t work for companies that do this, but maybe hn just skews toward certain kinds of tech jobs.
It happens in big companies. My team is hiring about 100 people in the next 6 months.
For external candidates, we see less than 30% of all resumes. As with all things, 80% of the rest are junk and another 20% are potentially viable candidates.
For external candidates, we see less than 30% of all resumes. As with all things, 80% of the rest are junk and another 20% are potentially viable candidates.
Exactly.
It would seem most of the over-confident “it’s a myth” comments in this thread are from folks not familiar with typical processes for hiring in the 100s to 1000s.
It would seem most of the over-confident “it’s a myth” comments in this thread are from folks not familiar with typical processes for hiring in the 100s to 1000s.
You shouldn't be hiring that many. The company might, but the managers and people doing the interviews should be looking at maybe 20 positions per year. They can read résumés themselves and give it some thought.
Who sorts which 20 out of 20,000 resumes go to which managers? Not the managers. Who is “the company”? That’s who is keyword searching/matching/filtering.
The hiring manager. We have got tired of hr rejecting great résumés because they don't understand keywords. They have no clue that qt and qt5 are the same thing, and if we put both keywords on they reject someone with only one. Nor do they get that someone great with c++ is almost automatically great at qt. I'd be happy to teach c++ to someone with rust or Haskell experience if they are willing to learn. (And if it is rust we are open to new work in rust, though we have a lot of legacy c++ you will maintain)
We consider ourselves lucky to get 50 résumés, and if even one isn't obviously disqualified that is a miracle
We consider ourselves lucky to get 50 résumés, and if even one isn't obviously disqualified that is a miracle
In college I got the advice that if you couldn’t highlight text on your resume then a bot can’t read it and it might get thrown out. And if that might cause it why risk it?
I think the fact it’s low cost to avoid and high cost if it occurs keeps most people just doing it regardless of whether it’s true or not
I think the fact it’s low cost to avoid and high cost if it occurs keeps most people just doing it regardless of whether it’s true or not
Sadly I think this is a bit idealistic. Even in healthcare, doctors can't agree on abbreviations to put into a patient's records, and sadly the state of EMRs (electronic medical records) is a shambles due to this sort of data impedance mismatch.
Come to think of it, the latter is probably why many of us will always have a job.
Come to think of it, the latter is probably why many of us will always have a job.
In my company our HR department actually reads all applications.
This is not true for the largest corporations of course. But that is a solvable problem, just provide a standardized form. You can even adapt it to the needs of the industry in question. This is actually a great boon because you can specifically ask for qualifications. There should be enough budget for that at least.
If you company easily discards applications your HR is either incompetent or it just isn't looking for candidates. But even then you try to build a connection to people applying to you. You may meet them later because they tend to work in your industry.
Again, there are special rules for the largest of corporations although I think HR should be manned enough to have a sensible recruitment process.
This is not true for the largest corporations of course. But that is a solvable problem, just provide a standardized form. You can even adapt it to the needs of the industry in question. This is actually a great boon because you can specifically ask for qualifications. There should be enough budget for that at least.
If you company easily discards applications your HR is either incompetent or it just isn't looking for candidates. But even then you try to build a connection to people applying to you. You may meet them later because they tend to work in your industry.
Again, there are special rules for the largest of corporations although I think HR should be manned enough to have a sensible recruitment process.
So what? You're looking at it one job at a time, and for any one given job it might indeed suck. But collectively, the times when you're unfairly tossed out are balanced by the times when other people are, and you benefit from being in a smaller pool. If you spell it "nodejs," surely some HR person somewhere does too.
It's random, and not based on any job-relevant differences, for sure. But hiring is always going to be pretty random so long as we're pretty bad at predicting who'll be good at any given job. So long as there's no systemic bias, it's fine, and selection by idiosyncratic spelling is at least much less biased than a lot of other irrelevant criteria that get used in hiring.
It's random, and not based on any job-relevant differences, for sure. But hiring is always going to be pretty random so long as we're pretty bad at predicting who'll be good at any given job. So long as there's no systemic bias, it's fine, and selection by idiosyncratic spelling is at least much less biased than a lot of other irrelevant criteria that get used in hiring.
New opportunities: Just as "medical coder" is now a profession (related to insurance filing), we could have "resume coder" as a profession.
This is a people problem, not a technical one.
If a company is choosing which candidates to interview using grep, it's very likely the rest of their hiring process is similarly broken, and quite possibly other aspects of their corporate culture as well. They're actually doing candidates a favour by giving a clear indicator of how shit they are, much like a candidate who turns up to an interview drunk.
If a company is choosing which candidates to interview using grep, it's very likely the rest of their hiring process is similarly broken, and quite possibly other aspects of their corporate culture as well. They're actually doing candidates a favour by giving a clear indicator of how shit they are, much like a candidate who turns up to an interview drunk.
If you put an idiot in charge of your recruiting, that is the real problem. A perfect AI that would tell you meant "node.js" when your iPhone's autocorrect changed it to "nodule jesus" won't protect you from the jackass running your hiring. There's no protection from being a moron.
I recall people copy-pasting the job description and hiding it in their resume by making the text invisible just so that automated software would see a 100% keyword match. Bonus here if you use 2-3 alternate spelling for each buzzword (C++ and c++). Is that no longer done?
Applicant Tracking systems, like Bullhorn, actually do a pretty decent job of fuzzy matching and normalising CV/resumés. Of course there is room for improvement and you need to ‘SEO’ your particular CV, but you really should do that for each job application anyway.
Your argument makes the case for human reviewers.
The examples are a stretch though. I've never heard of anyone losing an interview due to their spelling of nodejs or computer science. I don't buy that's something that happens often enough to spread FUD over.
The examples are a stretch though. I've never heard of anyone losing an interview due to their spelling of nodejs or computer science. I don't buy that's something that happens often enough to spread FUD over.
[deleted]
In what tech companies does HR still filter resumes? I haven’t seen this is over a decade.
Recruiters, hiring managers, and specialized software is all I see.
Recruiters, hiring managers, and specialized software is all I see.
I was stumped for a while when HR asked me about my experience with "Microsoft Visual Studio technology" for a Python job.
They were also looking for developers with nosql but they could not find any...all developers knew sql...
This is not really an issue. Most resume ATSs enable fuzzy searching on stems and similar keywords.
If HR is reviewing my CV then it’s prob not somewhere I want to work. :D
That's a great point, though.
Companies with this inferior filtering will see lower returns.
More simply, a resume is just seo for hr.
Sounds like a job for a buzzword fuzzer
I think you might be underestimating the number of applicants that some companies deal with. I used to work for a firm that did analytics and surveying for the recruitment industry. While applicant to hire ratios in the tech industry might be 10 to 1, in many jobs you can easily be looking at 100 to 1. At those scales companies are using automated CV scanning tools and outsourced humans to whittle them down to a set that hiring managers can actually cope with. This is why many companies insist that you enter all the information into a structured form.
My basic rule of thumb is that the more structured and formal the CV submission process is, the worse the applicant to hire ratio will be, and so the more people you are up against.
For those of us in the tech industry, especially later in our careers, that probably isn't an issue, but in many other jobs, and earlier in your carreer, then it's going to be an issue. I remember having to re-enter my CV into ATSs back in 2001 for the big companies hiring graduates because they had so many to get throught, smaller companies just wanted your CVs.
My basic rule of thumb is that the more structured and formal the CV submission process is, the worse the applicant to hire ratio will be, and so the more people you are up against.
For those of us in the tech industry, especially later in our careers, that probably isn't an issue, but in many other jobs, and earlier in your carreer, then it's going to be an issue. I remember having to re-enter my CV into ATSs back in 2001 for the big companies hiring graduates because they had so many to get throught, smaller companies just wanted your CVs.
Indeed if there were a standard format, there would be competitive advantages to using other channels to showcase your experience
That's already the case. You're much more likely to get hired if you know someone on the inside, if you've been recommended. If you apply through the official channels, you might not even get a response.
But I think an official format for CVs might not work so well because CVs in different fields aren't formatted in the same way. A programmer isn't going to put forward the same kinds of things as a musician or a professor in psychology.
But I think an official format for CVs might not work so well because CVs in different fields aren't formatted in the same way. A programmer isn't going to put forward the same kinds of things as a musician or a professor in psychology.
As a hiring manager you’d be inclined to disagree.
If resumes could be standardized and easily searchable for information it would help find candidates much more accurately and quickly without having to read.
Even better would be if there was a verification standard where you could get a blue checkmark on your resume meaning all the information is accurate and not made up bullshit, then you could limit searches only to verified resumes and do less investigation or third party background checking.
It pushes industries forward.
If resumes could be standardized and easily searchable for information it would help find candidates much more accurately and quickly without having to read.
Even better would be if there was a verification standard where you could get a blue checkmark on your resume meaning all the information is accurate and not made up bullshit, then you could limit searches only to verified resumes and do less investigation or third party background checking.
It pushes industries forward.
That sounds like it pushes hiring managers forward, not industries. You get a benefit out of making it easier to fill open spaces, at the cost of everyone else's unique life experiences.
We have a "verification standard" in the form of diplomas and certificates and neither of those have fixed the hiring issue so far.
If you want to skip background checking, just make people bring their proof of certification with them to the job interview. Of course, those certifications barely mean anything in most fields of work, but it's an exact equivalent of the blue checkmark system you propose.
I get that hiring is hard, but that's why hiring managers exist in the first place. If we used a nicely standardised, automatically validated system, all recruiters and hiring managers would be out of a job. Why pay someone to do that stuff when you could pay a cheap machine learned AI to fill a list of requirements for you?
We have a "verification standard" in the form of diplomas and certificates and neither of those have fixed the hiring issue so far.
If you want to skip background checking, just make people bring their proof of certification with them to the job interview. Of course, those certifications barely mean anything in most fields of work, but it's an exact equivalent of the blue checkmark system you propose.
I get that hiring is hard, but that's why hiring managers exist in the first place. If we used a nicely standardised, automatically validated system, all recruiters and hiring managers would be out of a job. Why pay someone to do that stuff when you could pay a cheap machine learned AI to fill a list of requirements for you?
> If resumes could be standardized and easily searchable for information it would help find candidates much more accurately and quickly without having to read.
I see how that can be useful from the recruiting side of the table, but fail to see how the candidate benefits.
I see how that can be useful from the recruiting side of the table, but fail to see how the candidate benefits.
Think back to the first time you wrote a resume. For me and all of my college buddies at least, it was super stressful, because we had no idea what it was supposed to look like and nothing but vague rumors to go on. If there were a straightforward canonical answer for how my resume should be formatted it would have saved me quite a bit of work and quite a bit of stress that I was doing it wrong.
A standard requires people to agree. When I was in college, I was told that a resume was a list of buzzwords and past jobs. 1 page max. That got me quite a few jobs. When I interviewed at Google, people were like "this is it?" when looking at my resume (not that it mattered). I started doing interviews and saw the resumes that ended up at Google and they were all multi-page affairs with details about all the projects you worked on at a job. I started doing that, only to be told "wow, that's a really long resume". (Hint: if your role requires 10 years of experience, applicants are probably going to have a long resume!)
The key point here, I guess, is that a lot of people have told me my resume is in the wrong format, but I still got the job. What's the right format for one employer is the wrong format for another employer. So there is no way to win. I now have no clue how to write a resume, but it also doesn't seem to matter.
(Still bitter about how few people ever look at my Github, though. People put that as a custom field in their automated system, and then the interviewers have nothing to say about my projects!)
The key point here, I guess, is that a lot of people have told me my resume is in the wrong format, but I still got the job. What's the right format for one employer is the wrong format for another employer. So there is no way to win. I now have no clue how to write a resume, but it also doesn't seem to matter.
(Still bitter about how few people ever look at my Github, though. People put that as a custom field in their automated system, and then the interviewers have nothing to say about my projects!)
What if the blue checking organization becomes politicized and rejects your resume for arbitrary reasons?
You could probably only try to verify local education - for the foreign education not that easy. Even employment (even local) is very hard if possible at all. For example, I work for a large corp X as a contractor. It pays my agency Y. Y pays my umbrella company Z. Z pays me as its employee. There is hardly an easy way to link me to company X yet I've been there for 9 years.
Half the companies I've worked for have gone out of business or been acquired. Good luck verifying them.
Effective way to select for only young employees, I suppose.
Effective way to select for only young employees, I suppose.
I see what you're driving at -- but that implementing that "verification standard" (i.e. standardized, continually updating 3rd-party background checks) would be a huge undertaking, and a larger than cottage-sized industry in itself.
Way, way more than a matter of parsing a bunch of standardized resume documents.
Way, way more than a matter of parsing a bunch of standardized resume documents.
I wonder if there's any advantage in using fonts and layout that are adversarial to automated resume processing, as in if something fails to scan then perhaps a human is more likely to actually look at it. But perhaps HR just throws those out.
Quaint to think so, but no. If a system is using automated scanning and the document doesn’t scan correctly the recruiter is not going through the ones that didn’t work.
I’d wager in many cases they aren’t even aware of an failure to process a resume occurring.
I’d wager in many cases they aren’t even aware of an failure to process a resume occurring.
Also in the eventual human review if you have made yours illegible on purpose, you probably lose any advantage you gained with passing te very low bar of automatic filtering
Does anyone OCR? The systems I've heard of just extract the text from PDFs/docs. Then if some bits cannot be extracted, I was asked to type them myself.
Whether or not it should happen doesn't answer the question of why it hasn't happened. The fact is that the very companies that do automated processing of applications probably would welcome resume standardization, so why didn't they do it yet? It's in their power to propose a standard, settle on it, and require it.
I suspect the answer as to why it hasn't happened is simply because most laypeople applicants would find it too difficult to do something like LaTeX or whatever other thing would be necessary to make this a reality, and also, firms in general suck at adopting new technology.
I suspect the answer as to why it hasn't happened is simply because most laypeople applicants would find it too difficult to do something like LaTeX or whatever other thing would be necessary to make this a reality, and also, firms in general suck at adopting new technology.
> laypeople applicants would find it too difficult
> to do something like LaTeX or whatever
Those people where a CV and certificates matter, they already construct a CV in the closed system of LinkedIn or Monster's websites. Nobody needs to use LaTeX, there will be websites where anyone can do it, if anything that's an additional business opportunity.
No, I suspect the actual reason is: Nobody will do it unless the big players (LinkedIn etc.) will adopt it. And the big players don't do it because interoperability, and a CV that can be migrated anywhere, isn't in their interests.
Those people where a CV and certificates matter, they already construct a CV in the closed system of LinkedIn or Monster's websites. Nobody needs to use LaTeX, there will be websites where anyone can do it, if anything that's an additional business opportunity.
No, I suspect the actual reason is: Nobody will do it unless the big players (LinkedIn etc.) will adopt it. And the big players don't do it because interoperability, and a CV that can be migrated anywhere, isn't in their interests.
" Reducing someone's life history to a list of educational institutions and employers feels robotic ... but that kind of behaviour shouldn't be encouraged."
Reviewing CVs is boring. They should be made easy for the human who is reading. Imagine being a person in a human resources department going through 100s of these... If there was a good portable format, that process becomes far more efficient and interesting.
A good interview after the resume has been accepted would go into precisely what you are advocating for -- the life history and interpersonal context.
Reviewing CVs is boring. They should be made easy for the human who is reading. Imagine being a person in a human resources department going through 100s of these... If there was a good portable format, that process becomes far more efficient and interesting.
A good interview after the resume has been accepted would go into precisely what you are advocating for -- the life history and interpersonal context.
They should. You are correct on that.
Reality is, however and in my experience, that more and more HR departments fall for promises of AI snake oil. Virtually every employer I apply with has it's own portal, often times asking you to construct your CV anew on their website (often with drop downs that don't include the actual job title or skill). Preferably with a five minute web session and no submit confirmation. Couple this with companies increasingly not responding at all due to fear of being sued, and you'll spend hours on an application and won't even know whether the non-response is due to you, or due to the website trashing the submission. As for CV parsing, this has gone so far as to a big news site over here posting helpful articles on how to beat the system. "Favorite" tidbit: Submit two CV - one for humans, one for dumb algorithms.
Oh and btw, I'm applying at non-tech companies increasingly. Maybe humans isn't perfect either. I mean, I submit proof of 25 years of high grade enterprise IT experience, just for some HR person to ask me where my certificate as an "IT technian" is: they don't know what any of that "weird stuff" means, but to them I lack a generic "IT technician" certificate in early career. A thing that didn't even exist back then! But the latter may just well be a quirk of my own, bureaucratic country.
But overall, this is a hot mess already, and I have often times had the same thought: Why can't we have some sort interchangeable format, much like "geek code", just for all the possible job titles, universities, locations, and companies; with some format-dependent, but free text fields because one can never catch all of them in a fixed list?
Reality is, however and in my experience, that more and more HR departments fall for promises of AI snake oil. Virtually every employer I apply with has it's own portal, often times asking you to construct your CV anew on their website (often with drop downs that don't include the actual job title or skill). Preferably with a five minute web session and no submit confirmation. Couple this with companies increasingly not responding at all due to fear of being sued, and you'll spend hours on an application and won't even know whether the non-response is due to you, or due to the website trashing the submission. As for CV parsing, this has gone so far as to a big news site over here posting helpful articles on how to beat the system. "Favorite" tidbit: Submit two CV - one for humans, one for dumb algorithms.
Oh and btw, I'm applying at non-tech companies increasingly. Maybe humans isn't perfect either. I mean, I submit proof of 25 years of high grade enterprise IT experience, just for some HR person to ask me where my certificate as an "IT technian" is: they don't know what any of that "weird stuff" means, but to them I lack a generic "IT technician" certificate in early career. A thing that didn't even exist back then! But the latter may just well be a quirk of my own, bureaucratic country.
But overall, this is a hot mess already, and I have often times had the same thought: Why can't we have some sort interchangeable format, much like "geek code", just for all the possible job titles, universities, locations, and companies; with some format-dependent, but free text fields because one can never catch all of them in a fixed list?
I guess you could have a pdf with a hidden text layer full of tags and keywords.
> I understand that there are real life problems because companies do use automated processing on applications
I'll always remember but never find the post, where someone just hid tons of keywords in a joke resume and got interviews with an alarmingly high success rate.
I'll always remember but never find the post, where someone just hid tons of keywords in a joke resume and got interviews with an alarmingly high success rate.
https://www.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/comments/qhg5jo/this...
It might be this one?
It might be this one?
I agree they should be read by humans, but (and I feel most comments are missing that point) a standard format would help with that.
Having been reading resumes a lot lately, I always breathe a sigh of relief when people hand in the standard latex template, with maybe only the colors changed. The structure is immediately familiar and easy to navigate. I could use a client app that presents a hypothetical standard data format in such a way. My colleagues in sales or customer success on the other hand seem to prefer other formatting styles; they could look at their candidates in that way.
Having been reading resumes a lot lately, I always breathe a sigh of relief when people hand in the standard latex template, with maybe only the colors changed. The structure is immediately familiar and easy to navigate. I could use a client app that presents a hypothetical standard data format in such a way. My colleagues in sales or customer success on the other hand seem to prefer other formatting styles; they could look at their candidates in that way.
What do you mean by "the" standard LaTeX template?
ModernCV? https://ctan.org/pkg/moderncv
Exactly. That one.
Example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Moderncv...
Note that I'm not arguing that this it the best presentation possible for a CV. I'm just arguing that having a uniform presentation between CVs reduces the mental burden of filtering through them. (And if you want to get into that, might reduce bias, especially if you don't include the image in the presentation)
Note that I'm not arguing that this it the best presentation possible for a CV. I'm just arguing that having a uniform presentation between CVs reduces the mental burden of filtering through them. (And if you want to get into that, might reduce bias, especially if you don't include the image in the presentation)
Unfortunately the lack of a standardised format hasn’t stopped technology from being developed which automatically reviews CVs before they hit a human. The tech is already out there.
The problem we have currently is that some CVs fail that review because they’re in a format that the tools cannot parse. If you’re CV is strong but you’re seeing fewer responses despite having a prettier CV compared to your peers, then that might be the reason. So from your stance standardisation might actually help the industry rather than harm it.
The problem we have currently is that some CVs fail that review because they’re in a format that the tools cannot parse. If you’re CV is strong but you’re seeing fewer responses despite having a prettier CV compared to your peers, then that might be the reason. So from your stance standardisation might actually help the industry rather than harm it.
> The problem we have currently is that some CVs fail that review because they’re in a format that the tools cannot parse.
My company (we have software for responding to applicants in real time... think apply... instant conversation with a human recruiter) did a study of about 1,200 resumes and found that 14% of resumes had inaccuracies that would cause them to be screened out... and about 9% of resumes were in a unparsable format. A lot of the screening we see out there is really bad - mostly text search looking for key phrases like specific colleges, specific employers or specific skills. If you are imagining indexing resumes with elastic search and making queries, that may actually be better than state of the art which is usually something that turns into a SQL query.
My company (we have software for responding to applicants in real time... think apply... instant conversation with a human recruiter) did a study of about 1,200 resumes and found that 14% of resumes had inaccuracies that would cause them to be screened out... and about 9% of resumes were in a unparsable format. A lot of the screening we see out there is really bad - mostly text search looking for key phrases like specific colleges, specific employers or specific skills. If you are imagining indexing resumes with elastic search and making queries, that may actually be better than state of the art which is usually something that turns into a SQL query.
10 - 15% are typically unparsable, typically PDFs encoded as graphics, and to a lesser extent, Linkedin exports.
14% with incomplete information also sounds right.
And I also concur with you on the screening being pretty basic, not ES level of sophistication at all.
14% with incomplete information also sounds right.
And I also concur with you on the screening being pretty basic, not ES level of sophistication at all.
The unparsable numbers are really close to what we see. Lots of work to be done to make hiring better.
Given a lot of these tools cannot even parse CVs with inlined tables, the tools I’m imagining aren’t sophisticated in the slightest. But they are depressingly common.
CV or resume analyzed by non-human? Or in an universal format? I hope this will never happen.
How "automatized" way could help there? Unifying the CV/resumes for certain company? Sure, if they are have some form - could be stupid Google Form or more sophisticated like Teamtailor [0] - go ahead. You will have a nice databases or resumes and profiles similar to mini-LinkedIn. While I am fan of automation, I don't see any special incentive here that will profit HR team.
I know hundreds of examples, where CV nor initial job interview didn't exactly has shown how good someone is. Also, I personally had experienced a situation I have completely matched the job offer but after talk during interview, I knew it would be waste of time and mentally it will be a bad choice for next year(s) to join their Acme corp.
Do the JSON databases of applicants will help anyhow to solve the human relation job to find out the best candidate for the position? I am highly skeptical and in my humble opinion it will just "dehumanify" the whole process.
Maybe, it is good if you are looking for some warehouse worker like Amazon? /s
[0]: https://www.teamtailor.com/en/
How "automatized" way could help there? Unifying the CV/resumes for certain company? Sure, if they are have some form - could be stupid Google Form or more sophisticated like Teamtailor [0] - go ahead. You will have a nice databases or resumes and profiles similar to mini-LinkedIn. While I am fan of automation, I don't see any special incentive here that will profit HR team.
I know hundreds of examples, where CV nor initial job interview didn't exactly has shown how good someone is. Also, I personally had experienced a situation I have completely matched the job offer but after talk during interview, I knew it would be waste of time and mentally it will be a bad choice for next year(s) to join their Acme corp.
Do the JSON databases of applicants will help anyhow to solve the human relation job to find out the best candidate for the position? I am highly skeptical and in my humble opinion it will just "dehumanify" the whole process.
Maybe, it is good if you are looking for some warehouse worker like Amazon? /s
[0]: https://www.teamtailor.com/en/
I totally agree but we are fighting the tide (ran a resume, linkedin profile, and interview prep shop for 6 years). Everything in the process is being analyzed, parsed and benchmarked using AI, soon to a more granular level. I even came across some interview analysis software which measured the angle of the person's head along with tone and a bunch of other factors!
> Documents like these shouldn't be automatically processed, they should be reviewed by humans.
Human review is fraught with bias. A lot of attention and column inches are devoted to algorithmic bias these days, but let's not confuse that for evidence that human review is perfect or even better. It's just harder to audit.
Human review is fraught with bias. A lot of attention and column inches are devoted to algorithmic bias these days, but let's not confuse that for evidence that human review is perfect or even better. It's just harder to audit.
I don't think anyone is confusing algorithmic bias for evidence that humans are better. It's the other way around -- the argument has always been that algorithms are biased because humans are biased. Having a systemic bias that masquerades as neutral seems worse than having people in the loop.
When submitting my resume and interviewing for jobs, I'd certainly prefer to be subject to: 1) multiple people with different biases, 2) humans that can change their mind and/or recognize their biases, 3) humans that can explain their rationale, and 4) humans that can grasp and weight eccentric and non-conforming experience. I'm not interested in being ranked in a standardized way, because I'm not interested in being a pure cog in wheel.
I also think people who want standardized resumes and automated processing are vastly underestimating the SEO effect it will have on hiring. If resumes are automated, then many people more aggressive than you will game the system to the Nth degree. The same thing that happens to Google and the internet will happen to jobs: the loudest and spammiest will win, and the good content will go mostly unnoticed and unrewarded.
When submitting my resume and interviewing for jobs, I'd certainly prefer to be subject to: 1) multiple people with different biases, 2) humans that can change their mind and/or recognize their biases, 3) humans that can explain their rationale, and 4) humans that can grasp and weight eccentric and non-conforming experience. I'm not interested in being ranked in a standardized way, because I'm not interested in being a pure cog in wheel.
I also think people who want standardized resumes and automated processing are vastly underestimating the SEO effect it will have on hiring. If resumes are automated, then many people more aggressive than you will game the system to the Nth degree. The same thing that happens to Google and the internet will happen to jobs: the loudest and spammiest will win, and the good content will go mostly unnoticed and unrewarded.
I think resistance to algorithms is about failure modes. If an algorithm becomes standard and you are an edge case then you are in trouble, much the same way you are in trouble today with companies that have automated customer support and make it hard to contact a human being. Losing your email account is annoying but not being able to have a job is worse. Automated systems are designed to avoid mistakes but are bad at correcting mistakes. I would argue that even with humans involved the hiring process is harder to some people, even discounting bias, just because it is more or less standard but at least they have hope in the variance that remains.
I've seen thousands of resumes... it would be nice to have a baseline of requirements for specific positions. An RFC style guide for human parsing . Too many resumes miss what is important.
> educing someone's life history to a list of educational institutions and employers feels robotic even for a software developer's mindset.
that's a flawed view imo.
there could be plenty of catch-all sections to maintain "descriptions"
resume content expectations are largely driven by industry.
i've not heard of someone reading resume more than 10s.
the whole job posting industry dug themselves into a meaningless, needless task: parsing resume pdfs. heck, some even use "AI" for it.
that's a flawed view imo.
there could be plenty of catch-all sections to maintain "descriptions"
resume content expectations are largely driven by industry.
i've not heard of someone reading resume more than 10s.
the whole job posting industry dug themselves into a meaningless, needless task: parsing resume pdfs. heck, some even use "AI" for it.
> I understand that there are real life problems because companies do use automated processing on applications, but that kind of behaviour shouldn't be encouraged.
Ignoring the web, we already do some formatting with the common Education/Work experience trope. We could arrange resumes arbitrarily just to mess with employers, perhaps? They are already pretty easy to parse.
Ignoring the web, we already do some formatting with the common Education/Work experience trope. We could arrange resumes arbitrarily just to mess with employers, perhaps? They are already pretty easy to parse.
Knowing life, the end result would be multiple competing standards and weird clans would form along with studies proving that, statistically speaking, standard X people are different from standard Z people.
Edit: Humans are weird. I guess current ecosystem is not as bad as it could be ( even though it does suck ).
Edit: Humans are weird. I guess current ecosystem is not as bad as it could be ( even though it does suck ).
Yet, companies use AST tools, which automatically processes the CVs and resumes.
One person that is developing such a tool recommended collage students not to add too much links to their CVs because otherwise, their CV will be flagged as a malicious document.
One person that is developing such a tool recommended collage students not to add too much links to their CVs because otherwise, their CV will be flagged as a malicious document.
Currently they are automatically processed - poorly.
Also having this it will give you the User to make 1 resume and apply to millions of jobs. It’s a win / win situation
There is maybe 1 in 50 jobs that I'd actually want, so I imagine bulk applying to would guarantee I land something awful.
Not everyone has the luxury of choice though when it comes to employment.
Unless you’re the employer being deluged
Downside is when you have to make slight changes each time to better emphasize some aspect of your experience, depending on the job applied for. Recruiting agencies often do this to sex up their candidates chance of winning the job lottery.
A really great resume gets beyond the company names and educational institutions to demonstrate, with concrete numbers, how you improved things at your employer.
Reduced latency by 350 ms Increased engagement by 18% Reduced AWS spending by 23% Scaled from 13 to over 300 virtual machines
That sort of specificity and numerical quantification is what makes a great resume stand out.
Reduced latency by 350 ms Increased engagement by 18% Reduced AWS spending by 23% Scaled from 13 to over 300 virtual machines
That sort of specificity and numerical quantification is what makes a great resume stand out.
What about recipes though
I used to work in ontologies, and what I learned is that people would rather get an 80% heuristic solution for dirty data rather than a 100% correct solution for data they have to clean.
The big job sites have resume parsers that work well enough from a PDF or Word doc, and then they don't have to worry about you forgetting a close tag or a mandatory field. Sure, stuff gets lost, but they get 80% of a billion resumes rather than 100% of a million of them. They can't exchange data or even trust what they have, but it's good enough for them to make money. Meanwhile, a competitor demanding good data from its clients never gets off the ground.
Anyway, every data format for human information ends up being either vague (to allow in everything) or impossible (see the myths that programmers believe about names, time, addresses, etc.) You end up giving a string for each field... Then give up, just accept any string, and hope for the best.
Everybody wants Google or some machine learning solution because the formats never work for the information people want to convey. Better solutions could exist but the hacky ones are first to market, in a natural monopoly where there really only needs one good enough product.
If you think a lack of a good resume format is bad, look at electronic health records. Those are far more important to be correct and exchangeable, and even there the cleanup effort is always enormous.
The big job sites have resume parsers that work well enough from a PDF or Word doc, and then they don't have to worry about you forgetting a close tag or a mandatory field. Sure, stuff gets lost, but they get 80% of a billion resumes rather than 100% of a million of them. They can't exchange data or even trust what they have, but it's good enough for them to make money. Meanwhile, a competitor demanding good data from its clients never gets off the ground.
Anyway, every data format for human information ends up being either vague (to allow in everything) or impossible (see the myths that programmers believe about names, time, addresses, etc.) You end up giving a string for each field... Then give up, just accept any string, and hope for the best.
Everybody wants Google or some machine learning solution because the formats never work for the information people want to convey. Better solutions could exist but the hacky ones are first to market, in a natural monopoly where there really only needs one good enough product.
If you think a lack of a good resume format is bad, look at electronic health records. Those are far more important to be correct and exchangeable, and even there the cleanup effort is always enormous.
that still doesn't really explain why big companies have not initiated a RFC for resume format. they only have to come up with an RFC and just ask everyone to follow.
The cost of producing such an RFC is so small. guaranteed reduction in inefficiencies including operational costs.
my gut feeling is that 20% improvement could have big butterfly effects.
The cost of producing such an RFC is so small. guaranteed reduction in inefficiencies including operational costs.
my gut feeling is that 20% improvement could have big butterfly effects.
They have - it's called HR-XML. It's mostly B2B but if you use EuroPass CV it's using this under the covers
Because they don't want to commit to it. It would instantly become legacy and an increasing thorn in their sides.
That was what I learned in ontologies: there is nothing so well understood and immutable that the business case won't change. It's so much easier to be vague than to be clear.
I too was convinced that people would rather have good clean data that they could trust, and it would save them a ton of money in the long term while costing a little up front. Maybe someone out there can sell that idea, but it wasn't me.
That was what I learned in ontologies: there is nothing so well understood and immutable that the business case won't change. It's so much easier to be vague than to be clear.
I too was convinced that people would rather have good clean data that they could trust, and it would save them a ton of money in the long term while costing a little up front. Maybe someone out there can sell that idea, but it wasn't me.
very little in resumes format changed in the last 50 years.
This hinges on a false dichotomy.
You can have the current sloppy parsers AND a jsonresume.org parser besides each other.
You can even hide the latter behind a tiny 'other upload formats' link, if you are afraid this option deters uploads of PDFs or docxs.
You can have the current sloppy parsers AND a jsonresume.org parser besides each other.
You can even hide the latter behind a tiny 'other upload formats' link, if you are afraid this option deters uploads of PDFs or docxs.
This is exactly what is done with invoices.
You can get them as pdf that embed its content as xml, and the receiving ERP software that will load it will try to find the xml, or default to OCR.
> Those are far more important to be correct and exchangeable
In the US, those are far more important to be billable.
And that's the problem. Encoding the patient's medical state is simply an afterthought.
In the US, those are far more important to be billable.
And that's the problem. Encoding the patient's medical state is simply an afterthought.
Ideally, there would be software to save your resume in this standardized format (perhaps a word extension), which would mean there would be no cases like missing close-tags.
We've built standardized metadata into all downloaded resumes with our resume software at https://rezi.ai
This is a great comment for most data collection use-cases *****
Hence RSO: Resume Search Optimization
There is!
https://jsonresume.org/
But nobody really uses it for data interchange. I use it to render my resume in new layouts now and then.
Although, it does let style dictate content sometimes (some templates force you to have dates down to the day for job start and end dates, etc.)
But nobody really uses it for data interchange. I use it to render my resume in new layouts now and then.
Although, it does let style dictate content sometimes (some templates force you to have dates down to the day for job start and end dates, etc.)
Json Resume is still going strong. I am one of the founders, I try to do a couple major maintenance periods per year. Currently I am working on updating all the community projects built, still got quite a few to add but currently there is -> https://jsonresume.org/projects/
I think over 3k+ people use the new Gist hosting. (In our old hosting we had around 10k resumes. Not including those who by pass the free community hosting)
===
On a personal note, I've loved having my resume in a standard;
- Depending on what type of company/person I am applying to I will change my theme on the fly. (Startup vibes I will make it look hipster, if it's a more formal role I will use a simple black and white theme)
- I use to lose my most recent resume constantly, having it in a Gist called resume.json that I just edit seems to have solved that for me.
- Hopefully one day a standard will get integration adoption so I can just upload my resume.json and not have to fill out the same form fields a hundred times.
I think over 3k+ people use the new Gist hosting. (In our old hosting we had around 10k resumes. Not including those who by pass the free community hosting)
===
On a personal note, I've loved having my resume in a standard;
- Depending on what type of company/person I am applying to I will change my theme on the fly. (Startup vibes I will make it look hipster, if it's a more formal role I will use a simple black and white theme)
- I use to lose my most recent resume constantly, having it in a Gist called resume.json that I just edit seems to have solved that for me.
- Hopefully one day a standard will get integration adoption so I can just upload my resume.json and not have to fill out the same form fields a hundred times.
List of resume.json's on gist.github.com -> https://gist.github.com/search?l=JSON&o=desc&q=resume.json&s...
Hey thanks for maintaining this project! I have been using it this round of applications and it’s just so much more convenient than trying to edit a historical doc(x) file with a rotating cast of word editors over the years.
Hey! Appreciate this product a lot, this has been my go-to with a One Page theme for years now :)
Why JSON? Why not YAML or something more easily editable by a human?
Could of went either way really, YAML is a superset of JSON, so in theory, you can switch between them at any time.
I think we wanted JSON at the time because it just relied on less extra packages when working inside of the JS ecosystem.
So yeah, if anyone wants to make a resume.yaml, we only need to add an extra step to convert it to json for them to use any of the tooling.
I think we wanted JSON at the time because it just relied on less extra packages when working inside of the JS ecosystem.
So yeah, if anyone wants to make a resume.yaml, we only need to add an extra step to convert it to json for them to use any of the tooling.
Fair. I guess the reason I asked is because YAML is a little easier to play with for humans, especially since some sections need things like new lines among other things. Doing a YAML text block is easier to read and write than JSON's quoted string with new lines replaced with `\n`.
I used a JSON resume once and I like the idea. It didn't help when I had to apply for an unemployment benefit (while still trying to enter the industry) and they asked for my resume as a word document.
As you can imagine, I felt like a clown trying to explain that I didn't have a word document because my resume was generated from a JSON file.
I did, however, have a PDF on a USB drive I always kept on me but they refused to accept USBs out of fear that I was trying to give them a virus. Eventually the lady processing my application gave up and printed the PDF off that was hosted on my website but also scolded me for not having a word doc.
The whole ordeal was pointless anyway since they said they can give me 70% of my rent.
As you can imagine, I felt like a clown trying to explain that I didn't have a word document because my resume was generated from a JSON file.
I did, however, have a PDF on a USB drive I always kept on me but they refused to accept USBs out of fear that I was trying to give them a virus. Eventually the lady processing my application gave up and printed the PDF off that was hosted on my website but also scolded me for not having a word doc.
The whole ordeal was pointless anyway since they said they can give me 70% of my rent.
I have my resume in markdown so I can create a word/pdf/html etc. with pandoc. It would be possible to write something that parses a json resume into markdown so it could be trivially format shifted
One of those pdf-to-docx online converters would’ve probably been good enough for this.
My JSON resume is transformed to docx, and only latter to PDF for exactly this reason.
tl;dr - HR is underfunded / under-resourced / un-aspirational.
Even if there were a turn-key software platform they all used, which natively supported a standard data format, they'd still find a way to screw it up.
Even if there were a turn-key software platform they all used, which natively supported a standard data format, they'd still find a way to screw it up.
I came across this before. wish it's an accepted format on job portals.
A challenge I see is -- resumes change wildly by industry.
a tech resume is totallly different from an actor's resume.
A challenge I see is -- resumes change wildly by industry.
a tech resume is totallly different from an actor's resume.
Do you think this is so different that no formal spec can ever carry the common denominator?
https://www.cityheadshots.com/blog/acting-resume check this out
but I think this complexity can be handled.
I totally support json resumes.
but I think this complexity can be handled.
I totally support json resumes.
That's not really a "universal format", though. That's an "English language format". Actually, it's an "American format" since I see it specifies "organization" instead of "organisation".
Why should resumes in Vietnam or China be using English, after all.
Why should resumes in Vietnam or China be using English, after all.
Doesn't that hold true for any standard though?
In HTTP we have Get, Put, Post, Delete, Patch or Options and not obtenir, mettre, poster, supprimer, corriger, options. Yet the French use the web all the time, as do Chinese or Maui.
It would not be about how the fields are named, but about localised concepts. Maybe there are societies that have some educational concept which western Americans cannot fathom, but which is crucial on a CV there.
This,implies the standard needs to be flexible, extensible and localised. Which kindof defeats having a standard.
In HTTP we have Get, Put, Post, Delete, Patch or Options and not obtenir, mettre, poster, supprimer, corriger, options. Yet the French use the web all the time, as do Chinese or Maui.
It would not be about how the fields are named, but about localised concepts. Maybe there are societies that have some educational concept which western Americans cannot fathom, but which is crucial on a CV there.
This,implies the standard needs to be flexible, extensible and localised. Which kindof defeats having a standard.
That's fair point. But normal French people aren't interacting with HTTP directly in any meaningful way. (More snarkily: they're using browsers built by Americans to connect to webservers built by Americans.) But I imagine that 99% of people who use json-resume today are interacting directly with it.
So I suppose that parallel suggests it depends on whether there's a realistic expectation of WYSIWYG editors for any kind of universal resume format. Which I think seems incredibly unlikely.
So I suppose that parallel suggests it depends on whether there's a realistic expectation of WYSIWYG editors for any kind of universal resume format. Which I think seems incredibly unlikely.
That's true of the fields in the JSON, but for what it's worth you can output your resume in templates for any language you like. I've updated mine to use Hiberno English for instance.
My cv is and has been a yaml file for quite some time. Much more readable and presentable than json, natively.
This is great, thank you for sharing. I love the idea of defining the data once and then having different templates and layouts to choose from. Very CSS Zen Garden.
HR people don’t like changing their procedures.
I’ve done numerous interviews large corporations where the first part of the interview process involved copying my printed resume by hand onto sheets of paper so that someone could then type in what I had written into a web browser. Why they couldn’t just copy from my printed resume or accept soft copy in word or ascii I have no answers for.
When I joined at Chase Manhattan it was very obvious that their onboarding process is designed for large groups - many dozens of people at a time - but the day I joined I was the only one being hired. I spent a couple hours with just myself and a single HR rep going through a half dozen rooms, in each room I had to sit as far back and to the left as possible whereas she sat at the front right of the room. She could not pass out forms until I was seated, at which point I would have to come get the form from her and return to the far side of the room to fill it out, then bring it back to her, return to my seat, then she would announce we were moving to the next room, and it would begin again. When I tried to sit at the front of the room she became extremely agitated and refused to continue until I returned to the back of the room, when I tried to get a form from her without first sitting in the back of the room same result. The rest of the company is pretty much the same, it never got better.
I’ve done numerous interviews large corporations where the first part of the interview process involved copying my printed resume by hand onto sheets of paper so that someone could then type in what I had written into a web browser. Why they couldn’t just copy from my printed resume or accept soft copy in word or ascii I have no answers for.
When I joined at Chase Manhattan it was very obvious that their onboarding process is designed for large groups - many dozens of people at a time - but the day I joined I was the only one being hired. I spent a couple hours with just myself and a single HR rep going through a half dozen rooms, in each room I had to sit as far back and to the left as possible whereas she sat at the front right of the room. She could not pass out forms until I was seated, at which point I would have to come get the form from her and return to the far side of the room to fill it out, then bring it back to her, return to my seat, then she would announce we were moving to the next room, and it would begin again. When I tried to sit at the front of the room she became extremely agitated and refused to continue until I returned to the back of the room, when I tried to get a form from her without first sitting in the back of the room same result. The rest of the company is pretty much the same, it never got better.
That's a practical example on why we are so prone to associate "HR people" to "HR drones"!
That sounds like an incredibly unsettling experience.
It might be. On the other hand such a company is a dream come true if you want a stable paycheck, do piss-all and focus on your own projects instead. Just do your bare minimum and relax.
Not sure why it would be. Huge companies are bureaucracies and bureaucracies have procedures. The HR person was just following the procedure so she didn't get fired. You really can't blame her for that. I could see finding it frustrating but I don't think of it as strange or frightening.
Typical legacy bureaucracy.
- worked at a place where they printed A3 excel sheet to write new prices on paper with a pencil
- courthouse procedures are peak redundancy, it's like the opposite of any database normalization 101, the more you copy the same data in various formats the better, and do not question why. It's systemically settled, since everybody expect the data to look like this, any deviation will trigger anxiety, and since they have no information management training they will scream for missing data even though there's still 12 copies of it scattered around the page, just like the emacs keyboard xkcd blended with the old waiting room social mirroring experiment
- worked at a place where they printed A3 excel sheet to write new prices on paper with a pencil
- courthouse procedures are peak redundancy, it's like the opposite of any database normalization 101, the more you copy the same data in various formats the better, and do not question why. It's systemically settled, since everybody expect the data to look like this, any deviation will trigger anxiety, and since they have no information management training they will scream for missing data even though there's still 12 copies of it scattered around the page, just like the emacs keyboard xkcd blended with the old waiting room social mirroring experiment
There are three different common standards: HR Open Standards Candidate, schema.org and JSON Resume. HROS (which does XML and JSON) is used as a data exchange format between enterprise ATS and HRIS it's very comprehensive and is very detailed (perhaps too detailed). Schema.org seems mostly like Google and friends just making something up (without even trying to work with other existing standards) and trying to get everyone to use it. JSON resume is about what it sounds like it is. Oh, and then there are various de facto standards where ATSes that work with job boards like Indeed or data vendors like People Data Labs... So there's a lot of standards. The problem is:
a good standard is one everyone uses.
Personal opinion: resumes are actually kind of hard. I've personally been involved in HR Open Standards and even though it is a very complete standard, it's still hard to map real world resumes into the format sometimes. There is a shocking amount of ambiguity, and a shocking amount of adjacent standards (some of those have been adopted) for describing work history, education, certifications, people and workplaces.
So... most of the industry just parses resumes into some internal schema, and a lot of employers make job seekers enter their education and history on a job application form so they get it their way. It's really messy. Hope that helps.
a good standard is one everyone uses.
Personal opinion: resumes are actually kind of hard. I've personally been involved in HR Open Standards and even though it is a very complete standard, it's still hard to map real world resumes into the format sometimes. There is a shocking amount of ambiguity, and a shocking amount of adjacent standards (some of those have been adopted) for describing work history, education, certifications, people and workplaces.
So... most of the industry just parses resumes into some internal schema, and a lot of employers make job seekers enter their education and history on a job application form so they get it their way. It's really messy. Hope that helps.
Schema.org doesn't have anything for the resume side of things. They have a model for a job listing, so job listings can appear in search results with special formatting, but nothing for resumes.
HR Open Standards is only available with membership. Doesn't appear very "open", but I'd assume that doesn't matter much to the industry.
JSON Resume seems like the best take so far. I've used it for my resume and at my current job, and, although we've had to extend the schema, it's a great base to start with. It's got all the structured fields one would need to build a resume. It would be trivial for a company to start accepting it, at least as a way to pre-fill all the "education and history" fields that we have to fill out anyway.
HR Open Standards is only available with membership. Doesn't appear very "open", but I'd assume that doesn't matter much to the industry.
JSON Resume seems like the best take so far. I've used it for my resume and at my current job, and, although we've had to extend the schema, it's a great base to start with. It's got all the structured fields one would need to build a resume. It would be trivial for a company to start accepting it, at least as a way to pre-fill all the "education and history" fields that we have to fill out anyway.
>HR Open Standards is only available with membership. Doesn't appear very "open", but I'd assume that doesn't matter much to the industry.
Membership is free and you can access the standards (from their website hropenstandards.org):
"The versions of HR Open Standards linked below are available for free public download. You need to be logged in to download the standards. If you're not already an HR Open Standards member, you can register for a free Community membership account."
Membership is free and you can access the standards (from their website hropenstandards.org):
"The versions of HR Open Standards linked below are available for free public download. You need to be logged in to download the standards. If you're not already an HR Open Standards member, you can register for a free Community membership account."
Schema.org treats resume data as an extension of person. There's hasOccupation and role and alumniOf and organizationRole. It's not a "resume" it's a profile (old joke for job board people).
The EU has tried to put one in place, and it is used for all EU funding programmes and by a number of national and local administrations in Europe, so probably tens of millions used per year.
Not sure I like the format but its good it stresses experience and narrative over just 'formal' data. And they have done it quite nicely that you can either download a template and work offline, or you can work in the browser and then download later again upload/import your CV to continue editing, make versions, etc without any data being stored on the server.
https://europa.eu/europass/en
Not sure I like the format but its good it stresses experience and narrative over just 'formal' data. And they have done it quite nicely that you can either download a template and work offline, or you can work in the browser and then download later again upload/import your CV to continue editing, make versions, etc without any data being stored on the server.
https://europa.eu/europass/en
Yes - this is Europass CV. The XML schema is described at https://europa.eu/europass/en/eportfolio-interoperability (the web builder and I'm sure other tools attach the XML to the PDF you download so HR apps can easily make sense of it). It's a specialisation of HR-XML which was one of the first standards groups in this area (now part of https://www.hropenstandards.org).
I always use the Europass format. For an IT sysadmin job, it's not like I'm trying to prove that I know how to use a basic word processor. Or demonstrate the type of artistic design skills that go into coming up with my own format. I like the fact that by using something standard, I'm less likely to be judged on stuff like choice of font etc. It tends to cover key details in a fairly terse format well which at least leaves scope for more wordy explanations in a cover letter. I find I don't end up needing to tweak the CV much when adapting it for different job applications while any cover letter does tend to then be fully one-off.
That said, my record in actually ever landing a new job is fairly woeful but that may be more down to being poor in interviews.
That said, my record in actually ever landing a new job is fairly woeful but that may be more down to being poor in interviews.
Amazing - I have recently created a CV at the EU's job advert aggregation website, EURES, and that appears to be a separate thing? Great to have a standard when the own organization doesn't appear to follow it? wonder
I haven’t tried it, but you should find you can export to and from your EURES profile to Europass (and vice versa)- they are distinct, but connected.
Great tip - thanks! :)
Hiring companies might prefer to just have this as a "hoop."
There are, inevitably, some people who apply to a lot of jobs. Jobs they aren't qualified for. Low intent applications, where the applicant isn't really that interested. Etc.
Even if these are a minority, they apply to a lot of jobs. In any case, standardizing job applications (OP seems to be talking about application forms that are mostly resume-ish fields) just means more of these. More volume, more noise, probably not many more successful hires.
There's kind of the same dynamic on the other side. Most workers don't love the idea of submitting an indexable resume for employers to leaf through.
Sometimes a modicum of friction is helpful.
There are, inevitably, some people who apply to a lot of jobs. Jobs they aren't qualified for. Low intent applications, where the applicant isn't really that interested. Etc.
Even if these are a minority, they apply to a lot of jobs. In any case, standardizing job applications (OP seems to be talking about application forms that are mostly resume-ish fields) just means more of these. More volume, more noise, probably not many more successful hires.
There's kind of the same dynamic on the other side. Most workers don't love the idea of submitting an indexable resume for employers to leaf through.
Sometimes a modicum of friction is helpful.
They should ask for a cover letter.
I agree that a hoop is needed - I recently posted a job on LinkedIn which has some kind of "click to apply" functionality, and it was clear that most of the applicants were just lazy clickers that probably hadn't even read the posting. On the other hand, if you make people jump through pointless procedural hoops, you're screening for people who are ok doing that.
Ask for a cover letter, you get people who actually want the job and hear from them why they are interested.
I agree that a hoop is needed - I recently posted a job on LinkedIn which has some kind of "click to apply" functionality, and it was clear that most of the applicants were just lazy clickers that probably hadn't even read the posting. On the other hand, if you make people jump through pointless procedural hoops, you're screening for people who are ok doing that.
Ask for a cover letter, you get people who actually want the job and hear from them why they are interested.
What's the point of a machine-compatible CV and a human-written cover letter? A human will need to sift through the same amount of information, except now they also need to read the long suck-up prose that you asked for.
The honest truth about why they want the job for most people is that they provide what you need and that they enjoy things like eating, having a roof over their head, and fun things to do with what's left over of the money you pay them.
Coming up with some drivel about how they've been entranced with Version_Five Inc's tech since they were twelve and how it's been their life-long dream to work with their famous Foobar Widget control language is a nice creative writing exercise but it hardly proves anything. If anything, it rewards lying and deceit to get hired quicker.
Many very capable people suck at writing, even if they are truly driven and interested, especially in the computer science field. A cover letter is a great screen for a job that involves a lot of writing, but for most jobs writing is only a side activity that shouldn't be treated as the main objective.
The honest truth about why they want the job for most people is that they provide what you need and that they enjoy things like eating, having a roof over their head, and fun things to do with what's left over of the money you pay them.
Coming up with some drivel about how they've been entranced with Version_Five Inc's tech since they were twelve and how it's been their life-long dream to work with their famous Foobar Widget control language is a nice creative writing exercise but it hardly proves anything. If anything, it rewards lying and deceit to get hired quicker.
Many very capable people suck at writing, even if they are truly driven and interested, especially in the computer science field. A cover letter is a great screen for a job that involves a lot of writing, but for most jobs writing is only a side activity that shouldn't be treated as the main objective.
A cover letter is a screen too.
A cover letter is a kind of writing contest, or maybe it's perceived that way by a candidate. Writing about yourself can be stressful.
I'm not saying not to, ask for a cover letter. Just saying that this stuff is nuanced. Standardisation is great when you want very low friction. Job applications aren't frictionless, probably can't/shouldn't be. Some copy paste fields might be inelegant, but it's not changing the friction equation by much.
A cover letter is a kind of writing contest, or maybe it's perceived that way by a candidate. Writing about yourself can be stressful.
I'm not saying not to, ask for a cover letter. Just saying that this stuff is nuanced. Standardisation is great when you want very low friction. Job applications aren't frictionless, probably can't/shouldn't be. Some copy paste fields might be inelegant, but it's not changing the friction equation by much.
[deleted]
Sometimes a modicum of friction is helpful.
The thing is it's far more than a "modicum" in practice. There was a recent Harvard Business School study out there revealing that these systems are poorly calibrated (and/or these companies don't know how to use them), and as a result millions of candidates are getting rejected for reasons that are either specious (6-month resume "gaps" that may be due to normal life circumstances) or utterly meaningless reasons (like failing to match certain word combinations).
But I agree though that many HR departments would still love to use any tool that narrows the pool (however lossy the filter may be). Whether that is a good thing or bad thing or not is a matter of perspective.
In my view, it puts HR's own value and utility into question.
The thing is it's far more than a "modicum" in practice. There was a recent Harvard Business School study out there revealing that these systems are poorly calibrated (and/or these companies don't know how to use them), and as a result millions of candidates are getting rejected for reasons that are either specious (6-month resume "gaps" that may be due to normal life circumstances) or utterly meaningless reasons (like failing to match certain word combinations).
But I agree though that many HR departments would still love to use any tool that narrows the pool (however lossy the filter may be). Whether that is a good thing or bad thing or not is a matter of perspective.
In my view, it puts HR's own value and utility into question.
> 6-month resume "gaps" that may be due to normal life circumstances
Yep, that's me taking care of my mother undergoing cancer treatment.
Yep, that's me taking care of my mother undergoing cancer treatment.
There is one, it is just proprietary https://linkedin.com
people are coming from the angle of “why do I have to fill out a webform and not just upload a standard file for ingestion” but in terms of how much of computing is experienced today, that’s starting to seem like an antiquated notion… how many people are using phones or tablets to apply for jobs? they’re not doing much file managing directly… linkedin is already supplanting resumes
This is super obvious and software developers who use open source tend to always think that open source software is the solution.
Sometimes it’s an economics problem. Problems need incentives before they can be solved.
Sometimes it’s an economics problem. Problems need incentives before they can be solved.
Yep. And it comes with network search too which your PDF resume does not have.
I always put my LinkedIn profile in my Cv. Recruiters often use LinkedIn to manage their candidates anyway.
Why should there be? Resumes have to be read by humans to judge if they match what is needed. Checking boxes and matching buzzwords only gets you so far.
Resumes go through many systems i.e. job sites, recruiters, HR, hiring managers and are often poorly parsed by many of them.
It's not like people are managing dozens/hundreds of candidates with a pen/paper.
There is definitely a need for a standard format.
It's not like people are managing dozens/hundreds of candidates with a pen/paper.
There is definitely a need for a standard format.
I think the most charitable and equitable function would be sorting and solving without filtering.
It shouldn't take too long to parse the desirable skills from the top after that.
Maybe this standard can match against desired/offered compensation brackets as well to get that sweet spot on the bell curve.
It shouldn't take too long to parse the desirable skills from the top after that.
Maybe this standard can match against desired/offered compensation brackets as well to get that sweet spot on the bell curve.
We are weeding out based on superficial and incomplete data all the time. When you go to a supermarket with plenty of options to buy tomato sauce, you don't read the ingredient list of everyone of them. Maybe you do a first skim towards some "bio" tag section, or to the cheapest one. Once there you scan for known brands, and only when you get only two or three remaining options you read the fine print.
Same when choosing a partner: the first thing you use to filter are looks, assuming the risk of filter out a below average looking person that will be your perfect match.
We, of course, delude ourselves into thinking that our method is 100% objective and unbiased. But it never is. Even if you read each one of the 1,000 CVs, you won't read the first one with the same energy you read the 950, and it's likely that you anchor on a given CV that you read among the first 20, and everyone after that is meassured against it.
CVs are by themselves only a proxy to a real person: why don't skip the CV and just interview everyone? Nobody's life fits in two pages.
Same when choosing a partner: the first thing you use to filter are looks, assuming the risk of filter out a below average looking person that will be your perfect match.
We, of course, delude ourselves into thinking that our method is 100% objective and unbiased. But it never is. Even if you read each one of the 1,000 CVs, you won't read the first one with the same energy you read the 950, and it's likely that you anchor on a given CV that you read among the first 20, and everyone after that is meassured against it.
CVs are by themselves only a proxy to a real person: why don't skip the CV and just interview everyone? Nobody's life fits in two pages.
Because many job applications make me check boxes already; I'd rather automate filling the same details into forms over and over again.
I think because some things like work history, education, they lend themselves to pretty standardized fields.
And we have to keep filling them out by hand ...
And we have to keep filling them out by hand ...
On the other hand, when you get a bit experienced, you have to filter your resume instead of just submitting everything, and the filters are different for every company, showing the things that are most relevant. E.g. some internship or award or early ten years ago should be included if the topic is relevant for the role and left out otherwise; the six different positions you had during your tenure at a large company may be important in one application to illustrate that you have done a particular role as well, and a waste of space for another application.
On the other hand, it makes all sense to have a standard "full" CV out of which to select the things to include.
On the other hand, it makes all sense to have a standard "full" CV out of which to select the things to include.
Makes it easier to spam them out when it's job-hunting time. On the HR side, they already filter on asinine keywords in the ATS. Why not join their game?
I don't think it's used very much but there is this one
http://xml.coverpages.org/HR-XML-ResumeSpecification200205.h...
This page mentions a few more formats: http://microformats.org/wiki/resume-formats
It seems like the problem isn't a lack of standards, but rather a lack of adoption and/or agreement on which standard to follow
This page mentions a few more formats: http://microformats.org/wiki/resume-formats
It seems like the problem isn't a lack of standards, but rather a lack of adoption and/or agreement on which standard to follow
15 standards and counting https://xkcd.com/927/
I used to write and maintain the code for resume and job parsing on an industry specific job board. A few thoughts:
1) the word resume can be spelled with zero, one or two accents, most commonly zero, and this fact alone seems apropos for the ridiculousness of submitting a document to a computer and hoping to get hired by a human
2) a resume is not the same as a CV
3) resume data interchange format is standardized once raw documents are parsed by sophisticated software — the problem is that most job boards and companies don’t reveal the parsed version or derived data including categorizations and ranking
4) most people assume, to their detriment, that they only need one resume
5) if you’re relying on resume submission to get you considered for a job, then you’re rolling the dice anyway and have nothing to complain about this ridiculous process
6) the most successful job searches will include networking prior to resume submission, or at least an understanding of how your resume parses in the target system
6) often the problem is with the job parse leading to junk matching of candidates — few if any recruiters/HR people would have any way of knowing this
There is, thanks to the semantic web (the real web 3 :) ).
See for example the FoaF ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAF_(ontology)
See for example the FoaF ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAF_(ontology)
Is the “semantic web” used in sensible, productive ways these days or does it remain an academic daydream?
I’m highly skeptical of the whole concept and feel like I should have organically come across it by now.
I’m highly skeptical of the whole concept and feel like I should have organically come across it by now.
Yeah, it is - not to the level people envisioned years ago where people made up their own tags and found a blend of XML and HTML, but it absolutely is in place for more meaningful HTML. We have tags that tell you the purpose of content - header, nav, section, article, footer, etc. Those tags are read by screen readers and other accessibility tools, and do bring semantic value to those readers.
Those things are semantic HTML elements, not the semantic web. The semantic web does have some HTML integration though, e.g. RDFa.
If you get job where you need to merge graph data from a bunch of different sources, you will likely run into the semantic web stack. The semantic web stack is basically a bunch of technologies for building graph databases and sharing graph data across domains. It isn't some huge network of interlinked data sources like originally envisioned, but it is definitely not dead. I think the concept of graph databases is still something people are only beginning to discover the uses for. Most people only know of the initial XML serialisation of RDF and OWL which rightfully made people skeptical. Nowadays, the most common serialisation format is TURTLE which is basically just a subset of SPARQL and it is very readable.
In fact, the underlying technologies are all quite mature (triplestore implementations and the RDF, SPARQL, OWL, etc. standards) and used heavily in certain domains, such as biology and language. The standards are designed for easy serialisation and interoperability which is the antithesis of the "modern" walled garden and/or commercial API approach of the big Internet companies, although they also use semantic web tech to a certain extent.
In Europe, you will run into RDF quite often in academia (and research in general). I'm working on the newest version of the Danish WordNet, for example, which is published as RDF and OWL (in the turtle format) and which runs in Apache Jena. Coincidentally, I am actually developing this new version in Clojure which stole the triplestore concept from the semantic web stack and made it a mainstream database type in the Clojure ecosystem (Datomic, Datascript, Datahike, Datalevin, Asami).
In fact, the underlying technologies are all quite mature (triplestore implementations and the RDF, SPARQL, OWL, etc. standards) and used heavily in certain domains, such as biology and language. The standards are designed for easy serialisation and interoperability which is the antithesis of the "modern" walled garden and/or commercial API approach of the big Internet companies, although they also use semantic web tech to a certain extent.
In Europe, you will run into RDF quite often in academia (and research in general). I'm working on the newest version of the Danish WordNet, for example, which is published as RDF and OWL (in the turtle format) and which runs in Apache Jena. Coincidentally, I am actually developing this new version in Clojure which stole the triplestore concept from the semantic web stack and made it a mainstream database type in the Clojure ecosystem (Datomic, Datascript, Datahike, Datalevin, Asami).
The EU is heavily investing in semantic data for education and digital identity, leaning on ontologies, RDF, json-ld and verifiable credentials.
Banks, research institutes, universities are joined in large consortiums. The German hotel reservation example above is one of the projects that’s getting attention.
Banks, research institutes, universities are joined in large consortiums. The German hotel reservation example above is one of the projects that’s getting attention.
There is some neat application for example many tickets/hotel reservation/restaurant do include them and this allow to make some email clients displays these tickets in a standard way.
KDE Itinerary and Apple Wallet make use of this. For the KDE Itinerary part, you can read more on this here: https://volkerkrause.eu/ (look at the KDE Itinerary posts)
KDE Itinerary and Apple Wallet make use of this. For the KDE Itinerary part, you can read more on this here: https://volkerkrause.eu/ (look at the KDE Itinerary posts)
I do miss the glory days of when the W3C was still in control and had some very good ideas that browsers did not like.
Some of these old AAA XHTML 1.1+RDFa websites were well engineered and a joy for both man and machine to behold.
Some of these old AAA XHTML 1.1+RDFa websites were well engineered and a joy for both man and machine to behold.
there is Europass CV: https://europa.eu/europass/en/what-europass
As an EU citizen I always used the Europass CV. So far no Employer, HR rep or even LinkedIn Recuriters ever told me to create my own version. I think they appriciate it because they know what to expect and makes a very good template. And making your own is more likely to go wrong than just using the template. It is very comprehensive and they have an online tool that lets you create it without having any Word document installed.
Only downside is that it gets tricky to edit unless you use that online editor. You have to re-import it and edit it that way unless you want to play around with Microsoft Word. But the format is consistent and its easy to read.
Only downside is that it gets tricky to edit unless you use that online editor. You have to re-import it and edit it that way unless you want to play around with Microsoft Word. But the format is consistent and its easy to read.
I can confirm in the EU europass is widely adopted.
I do not love it very much, but I appreciate the online tools to create/update them from XML descriptors, without having to mess with Word; on the other side, being a generic template, is not very fit to expose CS skills.
An employer I know (in the startup scene) said he trashed all europass CV as he assumed you are a dull corporate droid who did not even take time to write a customized CV...
(edit: grammar)
I do not love it very much, but I appreciate the online tools to create/update them from XML descriptors, without having to mess with Word; on the other side, being a generic template, is not very fit to expose CS skills.
An employer I know (in the startup scene) said he trashed all europass CV as he assumed you are a dull corporate droid who did not even take time to write a customized CV...
(edit: grammar)
That is great for all the people who prepared their CV in this format and avoided an employer who is unable to appreciate standards that work across borders or to realize that the information is more important than the format...
I worked on the problem of resume parsing for a year and a half. Pretrained language models helped us generate tons of Named Entity Recognition models that do a pretty decent job finding entities! This worked out pretty great for cities, names, businesses, universities. The real hard part is piping all the NERs to groupers that yield accurate groupings. Sometimes your NER misses a school but has a degree, related project descriptions and a graduation date. You have to re-run the NER on that area and make a best guess or give up. Lots of interesting applied NLP engineering problems there! I gave up though. If someone has more patience, I think this approach can really improve things.
I actually use the resume as yet another insight into the candidate. Did they send me a bland shopping receipt of skills and experiences or put some thought into the layout and visuals? Have they created a firehose of information that I will need to fight against to get the relevant information, or have they drafted some easy to read, but not too short, notes, etc?
The candidate probably does not know that though, so they might be writing an exhaustive list in the belief that you want to see everything, or a very short list in the belief that you only want to get a quick overview and will ask detailed questions in interview. Obviously you get to choose what criteria you use for hiring, but I can't imagine you won't be putting quite some noise into the process if you think of the resume as a personality test rather than their attempt to present things in a way they believe companies want.
How about having an XML file with all the stuff and a fancy PDF with the important stuff?
I think the same thing about invoicing... especially given the different hoops every company makes you jump through to make your invoice compliant.
Italy actually has a standard for electronic invoicing, and most companies are required to use it ("Fattura Elettronica"). It works by having a centralized portal to which invoices are submitted.
Of course, being a SERIOUS, CORPORATE standard it needs to be overly complex, based on XML and SOAP and WebServices and whatnot: https://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/portale/documents/20143/23...
Of course, being a SERIOUS, CORPORATE standard it needs to be overly complex, based on XML and SOAP and WebServices and whatnot: https://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/portale/documents/20143/23...
Don't they kind of do that at larger organizations with EDI? Or is it still nonstandard between organizations?
EDI is only semi-standardized; in my experience usually each pair of trading partners requires a separate effort (usually the bigger partner imposes the requirement and the smaller one has to make changes). Some difficulties include:
* There are multiple protocols for exchanging EDI documents (AS1, SMTP, FTPS, SFTP...)
* There are multiple standards for the documents themselves (EDIFACT, X12, GS1 XML...)
* There are partner-specific business rules that need to be set up (this partner needs an ASN, that partner requires invoices to be for only one PO each, the other partner can only accept invoices which use their ERP’s internal codes...)
Some of these problems can be papered over with a “VAN” that can translate between standards, but I have yet to see one business send a non-PDF invoice to another without a lot of fuss.
* There are multiple protocols for exchanging EDI documents (AS1, SMTP, FTPS, SFTP...)
* There are multiple standards for the documents themselves (EDIFACT, X12, GS1 XML...)
* There are partner-specific business rules that need to be set up (this partner needs an ASN, that partner requires invoices to be for only one PO each, the other partner can only accept invoices which use their ERP’s internal codes...)
Some of these problems can be papered over with a “VAN” that can translate between standards, but I have yet to see one business send a non-PDF invoice to another without a lot of fuss.
Good overview. I wrote about this in a bit more detail on our blog recently: https://www.stedi.com/blog/what-makes-edi-so-hard
> Why isn't there a universal data format for résumés?
There can be. You can create a universal data format for résumés.
You can make the universal data format a world standard in 7 steps:
1. Create a committee comprised of stakeholders.
2. Agree on a protocol for establishing consensus on requirements.
3. Consult all stakeholders about their requirements, and process these requirements through the committee in the form of a requirements document.
4. Develop a résumé format that meets the requirements through the committee.
5. Ratify and publish the résumé format standard through the committee.
6. Publicise the résumé standard.
7. Evangelise the résumé standard until it achieves widespread adoption.
That's almost all there is to it. You just need money, time, expertise, charisma, luck, and for the stakeholders to want you to succeed.
There can be. You can create a universal data format for résumés.
You can make the universal data format a world standard in 7 steps:
1. Create a committee comprised of stakeholders.
2. Agree on a protocol for establishing consensus on requirements.
3. Consult all stakeholders about their requirements, and process these requirements through the committee in the form of a requirements document.
4. Develop a résumé format that meets the requirements through the committee.
5. Ratify and publish the résumé format standard through the committee.
6. Publicise the résumé standard.
7. Evangelise the résumé standard until it achieves widespread adoption.
That's almost all there is to it. You just need money, time, expertise, charisma, luck, and for the stakeholders to want you to succeed.
This is great! I would add one more important item to that list:
- Find a common problem of these different stakeholders that will actually get solved by your new standard.
Often, the standards talk is just a solution in search of a problem. It is easy to build a standard. It is not so easy to build a standard which really solves some stakeholder pain and gets adopted by multiple organizations.
- Find a common problem of these different stakeholders that will actually get solved by your new standard.
Often, the standards talk is just a solution in search of a problem. It is easy to build a standard. It is not so easy to build a standard which really solves some stakeholder pain and gets adopted by multiple organizations.
At higher professional levels I think this is a bad idea. There's just too much variation in the kinds of things a resume might want to express. (Source: my own experience writing stupid amounts of code to get my academic CV into a CI pipeline on the web because no preexisting format for anything allowed me to express quite what I wanted)
There is in Japan. I seems horrible to me. (not saying it couldn't be done better)
https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%B1%A5%E6%AD%B4%E6%9B%B8&...
You list your school info, job history (not what you did, just date, company, title), and have room for about 2 sentences of personal description. You also have to put your picture so you can be judged on appearance.
Japan has some really nice features but treatment of employees, good salaries, good work culture, good hiring practices, are not among them
https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%B1%A5%E6%AD%B4%E6%9B%B8&...
You list your school info, job history (not what you did, just date, company, title), and have room for about 2 sentences of personal description. You also have to put your picture so you can be judged on appearance.
Japan has some really nice features but treatment of employees, good salaries, good work culture, good hiring practices, are not among them
To add a little more detail, there are two general resumes you submit to companies in Japan, one is the condensed one that the parent google linked (Rirekisho). The other is a more detailed "Keirekisho" which can be many pages and allows you to go into a lot of detail about your previous work and why you want to join your prospective company:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%E7%B5%8C%E6%AD%B4%E6%9B%B8&t=ffab...
There is a bit of flexibility with these formats, but they're standard enough—and many teaching resources are available. Most Japanese university students are already using them to apply for companies in their final year. This contrasts with my time at a California university, where many of my peers had no idea how to write a resume even after graduating.
There is a bit of flexibility with these formats, but they're standard enough—and many teaching resources are available. Most Japanese university students are already using them to apply for companies in their final year. This contrasts with my time at a California university, where many of my peers had no idea how to write a resume even after graduating.
Will it make a difference? It’s broken either way. Most people tasked with looking at resumes are just guessing or heavily biased. Automating the process will favor those who know how to game the system.
Linked in recommendations are a scam.
There is no easy solution. I suggest agencies setup and optimize a way to get a lot of people in vet and get the people out that don’t work out. For most companies this is a world of pain because they are not setup for it. We hire folks as 1099, give them a few tasks and within a week or two know if they will work out. Not perfect but better than waiting 6mo.
Linked in recommendations are a scam.
There is no easy solution. I suggest agencies setup and optimize a way to get a lot of people in vet and get the people out that don’t work out. For most companies this is a world of pain because they are not setup for it. We hire folks as 1099, give them a few tasks and within a week or two know if they will work out. Not perfect but better than waiting 6mo.
I've been told in the past by people who's jobs were to review résumés, that the less your résumé stands out visually from others, the more likely were you passed up. This makes sense if you stop and think about it. These people spend hours looking at résumés that all look the same, with the same qualification a lot of time.
Things like the font choice, the paper itself (recycled paper for example), the length (big isn't always better), the formatting choice, having subtle paper decorations... all of these small things can work in your favor if done in moderation. Obviously you need the qualification to go along with it, but if you're competing with someone who has the same qualification and you don't use platforms like Europass and edit everything yourself to stand from the crowd, well, your odds might just increase.
Obviously take this with a grain of salt. I've heard it from two people, but that's not a large enough sample and not everyone is the same.
Things like the font choice, the paper itself (recycled paper for example), the length (big isn't always better), the formatting choice, having subtle paper decorations... all of these small things can work in your favor if done in moderation. Obviously you need the qualification to go along with it, but if you're competing with someone who has the same qualification and you don't use platforms like Europass and edit everything yourself to stand from the crowd, well, your odds might just increase.
Obviously take this with a grain of salt. I've heard it from two people, but that's not a large enough sample and not everyone is the same.
There are many ways to create such format, and quite easily - using RDF plus some suitable ontology, etc. In fact, DOAC ontology is meant exactly for that, and I am sure there are 3-4 alternative ones too, and making a process to parse it would be relatively trivial. Why it's not done?
My guess it twofold. First, none of the resume sites is even remotely interested in data portability - they want you to use their site and their site alone. Why make it easier to go to the competitor? Second, despite all efforts, the usage of semantic web paradigms and all the automatic data processing that it enables is still minuscule outside of very niche communities - so most people aren't even aware of these solutions, and if nobody uses them, then nobody supports them, forming a vicious circle.
My guess it twofold. First, none of the resume sites is even remotely interested in data portability - they want you to use their site and their site alone. Why make it easier to go to the competitor? Second, despite all efforts, the usage of semantic web paradigms and all the automatic data processing that it enables is still minuscule outside of very niche communities - so most people aren't even aware of these solutions, and if nobody uses them, then nobody supports them, forming a vicious circle.
Because a resume isn't a job application. It's a description of who/what you think you are.
Something tells me that solving this would not help the OP's chances of landing a job.
* "Why do people like JSON so much?"
* No work history on LinkedIn except a <1 year contract in 2005
> "This got posted to Hacker News. I'm tempted to create an account and join the discussion, but I'm holding off for now because I've already got plenty of time-eating social venues to post on."
So, never heard of HN before, then deciding that despite being unemployed and spending too much time on social media already, those other sites are still a more important use of time?
> I've decided it's my job to whine, complain, and refuse to eat my vegetables until the employers start fixing the whole job-hunting process, because it really sucks.
Maybe the problem lies with the OP's value metrics
* "Why do people like JSON so much?"
* No work history on LinkedIn except a <1 year contract in 2005
> "This got posted to Hacker News. I'm tempted to create an account and join the discussion, but I'm holding off for now because I've already got plenty of time-eating social venues to post on."
So, never heard of HN before, then deciding that despite being unemployed and spending too much time on social media already, those other sites are still a more important use of time?
> I've decided it's my job to whine, complain, and refuse to eat my vegetables until the employers start fixing the whole job-hunting process, because it really sucks.
Maybe the problem lies with the OP's value metrics
That's like asking "Why isn't there a universal format for dating?"
UK here. Recruited lots of people for my company.
The technical details are irrelevant.
Recruitment agency sends you CV. That CV has all names, address, phone numbers and email addresses removed. This is to stop the recruiter from bypassing the expensive agency and contacting the applicant directly to save agency fees
Next, no age or DOB is displayed. That's against the equality act here.
Next, the recruitment agency pastes their logos at the top of your CV for advertising purposes
End result is that your CV looks nothing like it did when you sent it. The formatting is broken, it prints over 6+ pages. That's why they don't take PDFs, as they can't edit it.
The technical details are irrelevant.
Recruitment agency sends you CV. That CV has all names, address, phone numbers and email addresses removed. This is to stop the recruiter from bypassing the expensive agency and contacting the applicant directly to save agency fees
Next, no age or DOB is displayed. That's against the equality act here.
Next, the recruitment agency pastes their logos at the top of your CV for advertising purposes
End result is that your CV looks nothing like it did when you sent it. The formatting is broken, it prints over 6+ pages. That's why they don't take PDFs, as they can't edit it.
The few times I have had this happen to me, I have apologized to the interviewer for it. I knew it made their job harder to figure out what the recruiting firm had done to a relative standard resume layout. I would then hand them a paper copy from my bag that was actually readable. Doing so probably made the recruiting company mad, but if there was such a lack of trust between them about "stealing" candidates, I don't know what I could do to fix that.
Same reason there is none for business cards.
A business card conveys much more than purely the name, title and contact information of its bearer.
My CV/résumé is done using exquisite typography (since I studied that) and the choice of fonts and layout has a message too.
There is an interesting symmetry between the early role role of business cards and résumés today btw.[1]
These things can not be captured by the contents alone.
[1] https://www.caseyprinting.com/blog/what-is-the-history-of-bu...
Edit: typos
A business card conveys much more than purely the name, title and contact information of its bearer.
My CV/résumé is done using exquisite typography (since I studied that) and the choice of fonts and layout has a message too.
There is an interesting symmetry between the early role role of business cards and résumés today btw.[1]
These things can not be captured by the contents alone.
[1] https://www.caseyprinting.com/blog/what-is-the-history-of-bu...
Edit: typos
[deleted]
And miss out on gems like this? https://pjreddie.com/static/Redmon%20Resume.pdf
I was a contributor to the XML Resumé Project 20(!) years ago (http://xmlresume.sourceforge.net/), which could have been such a universal format. The goal was more about making it easy to render your resume in multiple formats, rather than data interchange, though.
I think that https://jsonresume.org/ is the modern equivalent (with much less XML, thankfully :).
I think that https://jsonresume.org/ is the modern equivalent (with much less XML, thankfully :).
I had a similar thought, actually started an open source project by myself at https://github.com/alpaylan/cvdl
My view is to have it similar to html/css paradigm of web. I started working with TOML based schemas for defining CV's, actually wrote my CV in the schema.
If you wanna go forward, I would love to be a contributor, also I would love to get your opinions.
My view is to have it similar to html/css paradigm of web. I started working with TOML based schemas for defining CV's, actually wrote my CV in the schema.
If you wanna go forward, I would love to be a contributor, also I would love to get your opinions.
I'm surprised nobody mentioned Europass. Personally, I'm not a fan precisely because it only shows raw info and doesn't leave anything for interpretation - it's cold and bureaucratic. But I understand why people love to us it. Around half of the CVs I see (in Europe) are in this format.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europass
There have been attempts at this (e.g. the hResume microformat) and you can use schema.org schemas to build one up, but beyond picking up basic data like name, address, telephone number, etc... parsing resumes is challenging. People's experience doesn't always fit nice and neatly into the fields the schemas imagine and the incentive to game such systems also leads to irregular data.
Could one use schema.org/Person to mark up HTML5 with appropriate microdata?
schema.org/Person is a terribly designed format, that I would not bring into new projects. Here are some of the reasons:
1. It lacks diversity (e.g. GenderType is incompatible with German laws, requiring "diverse" gender in official forms, which is definitely not "unisex" defined in the format).
2. It looks very much like a US-centric God Object. It is not clear why DUNS, ISICv4 or NAICS are there, but other identifiers like national ID or SSN are not. It would be better to have a single "identifiers" key-value map instead of them, that would be extensible.
3. Contacts would deserve a dedicated structure and key-value map (why single telephone field? why messenger IDs not there?).
1. It lacks diversity (e.g. GenderType is incompatible with German laws, requiring "diverse" gender in official forms, which is definitely not "unisex" defined in the format).
2. It looks very much like a US-centric God Object. It is not clear why DUNS, ISICv4 or NAICS are there, but other identifiers like national ID or SSN are not. It would be better to have a single "identifiers" key-value map instead of them, that would be extensible.
3. Contacts would deserve a dedicated structure and key-value map (why single telephone field? why messenger IDs not there?).
[deleted]
If companies wanted switching jobs or hiring to be streamlined and simple, they wouldn't do the job games they play.
Isn’t the concept of the resume kind of outdated for most jobs?
The typical advice is to write your resume as a series of impact stories. “Saved my company X% of costs by automating a key process.” Or “increased revenue by Y% by always showing up for my shifts on time” or whatever.
But for many (most?) listed jobs [1], employers want competencies. They have a list of things that need to get done and they want people who can do those things quickly and cheaply.
So if there is going to be a universal data format, I think it’s probably going to try to document competencies (which is what employers actually care about) and not the vague brag sheets that many resumes are.
[1] By listed jobs I mean jobs you’ll find on a public job board like “front end developer” or “marketing manager.” As opposed to leadership positions or unlisted jobs which are more focused on impact and more likely to be filled by referral or recruiting.
The typical advice is to write your resume as a series of impact stories. “Saved my company X% of costs by automating a key process.” Or “increased revenue by Y% by always showing up for my shifts on time” or whatever.
But for many (most?) listed jobs [1], employers want competencies. They have a list of things that need to get done and they want people who can do those things quickly and cheaply.
So if there is going to be a universal data format, I think it’s probably going to try to document competencies (which is what employers actually care about) and not the vague brag sheets that many resumes are.
[1] By listed jobs I mean jobs you’ll find on a public job board like “front end developer” or “marketing manager.” As opposed to leadership positions or unlisted jobs which are more focused on impact and more likely to be filled by referral or recruiting.
I have had a lot of success with "September 2019 - September 2020." Seems to work fine in nearly every case.
Note that there is some number of people who feel pretty strongly about obfuscating their age. I'm not sure what to feel about it personally but it's understandable.
As one of the other replies has stated that trimming the older stuff from your resume can help. I took a variation on that by going into detail with jobs for the last 10 years or so and having a simple list of other places I've worked and what the job titles were. There's also a linkedin url which has the expanded version if the reader is interested in going back more but it let me keep my resume to a single page, single sided, summery of the "professional me".
I started getting better responses when reduced my work experience by 7 years ) It also let me remove some obsolete junk that interviewers never heard of ))
Why isn't there a universal data format for invoices, receipts, purchase orders and utility bills? It's because they are simple, so every Tom Dick and Harry think they can generate them with a bit of code. It's trivial one way, super hard the other way around, and the second pard is not their problem.
Looks like there's an hresume microformat but https://schema.org/Person and https://schema.org/Occupation are probably the way to mark up resumes as JSONLD.
From https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51315725/resume-work-his... :
> Schema.org's Occupation example 4, illustrates how to use Role and hasOccupation to associate an array of work history, like so:
There's already a https://schema.org/JobPosting .
From https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51315725/resume-work-his... :
> Schema.org's Occupation example 4, illustrates how to use Role and hasOccupation to associate an array of work history, like so:
There's already a https://schema.org/JobPosting .
Because there's no demand for it. The vast majority of people who read and write resumes have no idea what an "open standard" is, and would be unable to create or read any resume that used such a format.
They need the software to be built first. But the software won't be built unless there is demand for it.
They need the software to be built first. But the software won't be built unless there is demand for it.
If you really want a job at my company, and the level at which you decide "this isn't worth my time" is 2 minutes to enter your details then you weren't a good fit in the first place. There are genuine reasons to turn down stupid requests in interview (ridiculous coding tests) but "Re-enter all your details into this form" isn't that hard, and if you really think you want the job then it's a very small price to pay. What is does is force unqualified candidates to distill their lack of qualifications. So for the hiring company it let's them cut out that bottom 50% of applications (not candidates, applications) that are just absurd. If you standardize it all you're doing is giving the mass-application candidates a cheat sheet.
Looks like your company praises doing useless, repetitive tasks. I’m pretty sure I do not want to apply there. Maybe if it was somewhere that actually prioritizes efficiency and meaningful work, you’d have a better way to do it.
Typing the same details a dozen times every time you change jobs is inefficient. That’s low end, people who aren’t engineers have to apply to way more than that.
The thing is that it's nowhere close to 2 minutes. Heck, it's optimistic even if you're straight out of college or if you're explicitly asking for just the most recent employment; but if your system is asking for everything and there's a few decades of data to enter in a weird form, you'd be lucky to do it in half an hour.
We’ve found the average time to apply to a corporate job post is 18 minutes.
Thank you for sending us XYZ Corp your universal resume document!
XYZ Corp is interested in learning more about you, so we are pleased to offer you the opportunity to now submit an XYZ Corp resume: Please follow [this link] for instructions on filling out the XYZ resume format correctly!
XYZ Corp is interested in learning more about you, so we are pleased to offer you the opportunity to now submit an XYZ Corp resume: Please follow [this link] for instructions on filling out the XYZ resume format correctly!
I used to be on the HR-XML standards committee which created XSD schemas for resumes (and other job-related data, like background checks). They seem to have morphed into the HR Open Standards Consortium:
https://www.hropenstandards.org
You must join (via email) in order to have access to the standards. Documentation for implementing the standards is via paid membership.
However, I have never seen a job site that will accept a conforming .XML file as an upload. They all want a .DOCX or .PDF, which they then proceed to mangle.
I can't explain why companies implement (bad) first-tier filtering via software, other than it's likely from their recruiters complaining to their bosses about all the spam and inappropriate candidates they get for openings.
https://www.hropenstandards.org
You must join (via email) in order to have access to the standards. Documentation for implementing the standards is via paid membership.
However, I have never seen a job site that will accept a conforming .XML file as an upload. They all want a .DOCX or .PDF, which they then proceed to mangle.
I can't explain why companies implement (bad) first-tier filtering via software, other than it's likely from their recruiters complaining to their bosses about all the spam and inappropriate candidates they get for openings.
I think that would be very cool. Coupled with a universal data-format for jobs, one could imagine a much better job match engine that doesn't rely on the right person finding the right job!
Like a job market that matches employees to employers but in an open database. I can't think of an easy way to monetize it in an open data sense, sadly, but it seems like everyone would benefit from it and so you could charge a small fee and kill recruiters if your job match engine was good.
The market being so lucrative, I imagine that someone has already tried it and the devil is in the details. Perhaps if I cared more about this and didn't have a great network, I might give it a shot. Could bootstrap off Github profiles or something, and be tech focused to start with.
Like a job market that matches employees to employers but in an open database. I can't think of an easy way to monetize it in an open data sense, sadly, but it seems like everyone would benefit from it and so you could charge a small fee and kill recruiters if your job match engine was good.
The market being so lucrative, I imagine that someone has already tried it and the devil is in the details. Perhaps if I cared more about this and didn't have a great network, I might give it a shot. Could bootstrap off Github profiles or something, and be tech focused to start with.
I always liked the idea of Europass, but it's easy to understand why it didn't get traction.
https://europa.eu/europass/en/create-europass-cv
https://europa.eu/europass/en/create-europass-cv
Oooh, me, me, me Miss. <hand up, nearly bouncing off the ceiling>
I partner in a firm these days (20 years) and in the past I was a permie and then a contractor (UK). 'résumé (henceforth "CV")' - I've seen a few and written one or two. I'm an IT sysadmin (time served) with an Engineering degree. My firm is an IT firm - not a cool one and rather small.
There is a trade off between prose and detail. You need to get across your persona and your skills. Skills are more important in general, but some particular detail may score highly. A decent layout and formatting may score too (I used to teach DTP) - don't bother with handwritten unless your cursive is prettier than mine and instantly legible.
When I'm faced with a waffle of CVs then I sort them into piles, most of which is a bin. It's tough, really tough and I do know what it is like on the other side too, so I do take pity occasionally, when I spot something that piques my interest on a CV that is probably doomed.
So, my advice is (for IT): * Two sides max (duplex, so one sheet printed on both sides). Front side has pertinent detail and back side has extra stuff. You need to be brief. Even a pdf has "pages", but P1 should present you effectively. * Keep the schooling (pre college) bit very concise. Bear in mind that's confirmatory stuff and not so important but we are used to seeing your life in roughly timeline order so don't be too cute! * Describe your skills. Now this is hard to get right. I suggest you dump modern names of systems but not versions unless it is important. * Previous employment. Keep it very concise. I don't really care who they are but I might be interested in particular technologies.
Now I've written the above, it's a bit more complicated than that ... ish.
When you are on one side of a desk and some bloke who might pay you is on the other side, just remember that a contract is two sided. Make sure that when you agree to a contract (employment for example) that you are as happy to do so as the other side.
Data format for CVs? RLY?
I partner in a firm these days (20 years) and in the past I was a permie and then a contractor (UK). 'résumé (henceforth "CV")' - I've seen a few and written one or two. I'm an IT sysadmin (time served) with an Engineering degree. My firm is an IT firm - not a cool one and rather small.
There is a trade off between prose and detail. You need to get across your persona and your skills. Skills are more important in general, but some particular detail may score highly. A decent layout and formatting may score too (I used to teach DTP) - don't bother with handwritten unless your cursive is prettier than mine and instantly legible.
When I'm faced with a waffle of CVs then I sort them into piles, most of which is a bin. It's tough, really tough and I do know what it is like on the other side too, so I do take pity occasionally, when I spot something that piques my interest on a CV that is probably doomed.
So, my advice is (for IT): * Two sides max (duplex, so one sheet printed on both sides). Front side has pertinent detail and back side has extra stuff. You need to be brief. Even a pdf has "pages", but P1 should present you effectively. * Keep the schooling (pre college) bit very concise. Bear in mind that's confirmatory stuff and not so important but we are used to seeing your life in roughly timeline order so don't be too cute! * Describe your skills. Now this is hard to get right. I suggest you dump modern names of systems but not versions unless it is important. * Previous employment. Keep it very concise. I don't really care who they are but I might be interested in particular technologies.
Now I've written the above, it's a bit more complicated than that ... ish.
When you are on one side of a desk and some bloke who might pay you is on the other side, just remember that a contract is two sided. Make sure that when you agree to a contract (employment for example) that you are as happy to do so as the other side.
Data format for CVs? RLY?
I’m pretty sure PDFs are the universal for resumes or close to it. Don’t send a word doc though.
Because résumés are subjective bullshit.
Also, once you start engineering a data format for résumés you are going to feel like you want a UUID for every company, university, organizational unit and position. Then some sort of weight they have in valuation of a candidate experience. Then...
My opinion is we don't need résumés at all. I mean they can probably be replaced with a 4-step process: an on-line choose-right test, then a test task, then an interview with an HR specialist who can evaluate the candidate's overall adequacy and then an interview with a specialist experienced in the actual job. I even suspect résumés are harmful.
Also, once you start engineering a data format for résumés you are going to feel like you want a UUID for every company, university, organizational unit and position. Then some sort of weight they have in valuation of a candidate experience. Then...
My opinion is we don't need résumés at all. I mean they can probably be replaced with a 4-step process: an on-line choose-right test, then a test task, then an interview with an HR specialist who can evaluate the candidate's overall adequacy and then an interview with a specialist experienced in the actual job. I even suspect résumés are harmful.
I definitely think there should be, and my project (Nectr, https://nectr.network) is an attempt at a standard format. Along with the common things (job history, education, et.al.), we also try to pin your abilities (skills, platforms, etc) to entries in our knowledge graph of IT skills and platforms; and we encode availability in a standard way. IMO, these two aspects are crucial to finding the right talent, when they are available.
There are two separate things going on in the linked post. One is the absence of a standard format as identified. The second is that HR software generally is enterprise software sold to leadership where usability is an afterthought, and so it only gets minimal development focus on having a quality resume ingestion algorithm. So you get the terrible parsing the author complains about. I'm confident that if any buyer really prioritized this feature being better, it would be.
I would have found it much more interesting and useful if the author had tried to sincerely answer or even ask the question of the title. Instead it’s just a complaint.
I guess the answer must be: Companies have no incentive to make it easy to apply to their job without manual intervention. Which makes sense -- if it were easy enough to apply to companies automatically, I guess some people would just write a script to apply to every company in their field, right?
The underlying problem is you need a JSON format about the company. But the things candidates care for generally are easy to lie about (good culture, career progression, even remote working options), so scatter guns are required. As they say recruitment is broken - but its not easily fixable because it’s broken because of game theory and human behaviour.
This is something of an issue with conference proposals as well. In fact, I've seen some conferences recently that put a strict limit on number of submittals. As a sometimes conference reviewer, I hate people throwing a bunch of overlapping and often generic stuff at the wall.
IMHO the author does answer the question without even noticing it.
At the end of the post, "The larger employers and job-hosting web sites need to get their acts together and work this out".
In a comment right below, the author says that this would be "giving job-seekers more control over their data".
Obviously, the larger employees and job-hosting web sites have no interest in allowing job-seekers more control over their data, quite the opposite, so they won't. And their active cooperation is absolutely required for such a data format to be adopted - so it won't be, at least not in a way that satisfies the author's wish of gaining more control over their data. That's it, it's that simple.
At the end of the post, "The larger employers and job-hosting web sites need to get their acts together and work this out".
In a comment right below, the author says that this would be "giving job-seekers more control over their data".
Obviously, the larger employees and job-hosting web sites have no interest in allowing job-seekers more control over their data, quite the opposite, so they won't. And their active cooperation is absolutely required for such a data format to be adopted - so it won't be, at least not in a way that satisfies the author's wish of gaining more control over their data. That's it, it's that simple.
Clearly written by an applicant rather than employer. Your resume is your chance to shine, use the opportunity or pay a service to do it for you.
The reason the author is trapped long enough in meat grinder hiring to notice this "problem" is likely precisely because of some indistinguishable cookie cutter bullet point soup getting them nowhere. If you can capture it in a data structure, it's not a resume!
See also: why isn't there a universal UI for web sites?
The reason the author is trapped long enough in meat grinder hiring to notice this "problem" is likely precisely because of some indistinguishable cookie cutter bullet point soup getting them nowhere. If you can capture it in a data structure, it's not a resume!
See also: why isn't there a universal UI for web sites?
> If you can capture it in a data structure, it's not a resume!
Pretty sure a Word file is a data structure.
Pretty sure a Word file is a data structure.
Résumés are boring.
On the employer front: I always hated looking at 1000x pieces of white paper that all look the same. It was mind numbing.
On the employee front: I always ensured I used very graphical resumes that stood out. They always got the attention of the hiring managers, and it was a great filter of either "You're boring so you threw my resume away" or "You're awesome and the kind of company I want to work for by having some fun with it".
On the employer front: I always hated looking at 1000x pieces of white paper that all look the same. It was mind numbing.
On the employee front: I always ensured I used very graphical resumes that stood out. They always got the attention of the hiring managers, and it was a great filter of either "You're boring so you threw my resume away" or "You're awesome and the kind of company I want to work for by having some fun with it".
Slightly off topic, but I have seen a number of comments mentioning "CV parsing". I implement HR technology for a living, which obviously includes recruitment solutions. I have never seen a company implement automated CV parsing, as in rejecting CVs which don't contain certain keywords.
Does anyone have first hand experience of working for a company which does implement automated CV parsing?
Does anyone have first hand experience of working for a company which does implement automated CV parsing?
Seems to be super common?
https://www.jobscan.co/blog/fortune-500-use-applicant-tracki...
https://www.jobscan.co/blog/fortune-500-use-applicant-tracki...
An Applicant Tracking System is just the industry term for recruitment software. Therefore, you'd expect every company to have one.
I can't see anything in that link that suggests those companies are doing automated CV parsing.
I can't see anything in that link that suggests those companies are doing automated CV parsing.
Says it all the way through?
> Some ATS, like Taleo, even automatically rank applicants by comparing the uploaded resume to the job description. This allows recruiters to cherry pick candidates at the top of the ranking.
Outside of tech jobs if you apply to a big-five or something they’re absolutely doing this.
> Some ATS, like Taleo, even automatically rank applicants by comparing the uploaded resume to the job description. This allows recruiters to cherry pick candidates at the top of the ranking.
Outside of tech jobs if you apply to a big-five or something they’re absolutely doing this.
I agree that the tools provide that capability, but I have never seen them implemented anywhere, hence asking if anyone has first hand experience.
Indeed there is a lack of a standard format for CVs, but this is the same for many other things in computing/IT/software in general. See the well known XKCD comic for standards [0] :-)
I don’t know if it helps, but in EU we have a well known and familiar format for the Europass CV [1] allowing someone to create a CV and then store it in 29 languages and also download it in various formats (xml included).
[0] https://xkcd.com/927/ [1] https://europa.eu/europass/en/create-europass-cv
[0] https://xkcd.com/927/ [1] https://europa.eu/europass/en/create-europass-cv
It’s because the function of a resume is largely social signaling, not a matter-of-fact reporting of career history. You can’t make a data format to encode that information, which is why a lot of job platforms require a resume and a list of your past jobs in a form.
Any solution for resumes is going to fall into the much harder category of social change, rather than technical solutions.
Any solution for resumes is going to fall into the much harder category of social change, rather than technical solutions.
The resume is a sales document for a complex product and that calls for differentiation. A strictly standardized and thus severely limited reflection of said product would serve neither buyer nor seller. It may however serve the platform provider (aka. HR) by saving processing costs and by being able to show they are getting the ‚best’ product for a given price.
Also would be nice to have some sort of international standard/repository for a person's medical history, allergies, etc. I'm sure I'm not the only one who gets tired of filling in that several pages long list of the same information that every single doctor's office asks for when you go for medical care as a new patient in the USA.
Everything cab be standardized so resumes can be as well. LinkedIn serves as a central hub for resumes in the "West" but how long and hard you can push it? In EU there is something like Europass which serves like a central hub for EU citizens' resumes and that can be seen as standardization format for resumes at least in the EU.
can*
Anti-competitive practise. If they make entering your resume suck, maybe you will only do it on one site (theirs).
I've been hearing people react to current (American) college admissions by saying the problem is the Common Application allowing people to apply to many schools at once.
I would be more likely to locate the problem in increasing numbers of applicants rather than increasing numbers of applications per applicant, but I wouldn't be opposed to seeing a more centralized system go up. American medical schools accept students through such a centralized system. Chinese university admissions isn't centralized to the same degree as American medical schools, but it's still quite centralized, and more formalized.
I would be more likely to locate the problem in increasing numbers of applicants rather than increasing numbers of applications per applicant, but I wouldn't be opposed to seeing a more centralized system go up. American medical schools accept students through such a centralized system. Chinese university admissions isn't centralized to the same degree as American medical schools, but it's still quite centralized, and more formalized.
[deleted]
One of the things I definitely liked about applying to smaller software shops is the ease of applying. I just sent then my resume, with an email. But anything big required endless customization to suit each's requirements, formats, etc. It was a damn pain in the bacon, and waste of time.
There kind of is, it’s call HR-XML and a number of COTS resume parsers output their results in this format.
Because in certain fields, the design of the resume is just as important as the content of the resume.
I worked at a HR tech company and we used Sovern for resume parsing. It was pretty darn accurate https://www.sovren.com/products/parser/
Because then you'll lose an opportunity to set yourself apart. See http://www.rleonardi.com/interactive-resume/, for example.
I am glad there is not. CVS give me an opportunity to review how effectively a candidate can write a document. Even those who use templates have plenty of room to screw up. For example, leaving an orphaned caption at the bottom of a page.
iirc there is a standard cv form in Japan. I never had to go through the job search in this manner, but a colleague said he just picked up a pack from a convenience store, filled them out, and sent them to every company.
There is HRXML:
https://workforce.com/news/what-hr-xml-means-and-why-youll-c...
But I don't think anyone really cared.
https://workforce.com/news/what-hr-xml-means-and-why-youll-c...
But I don't think anyone really cared.
Actually a lot of vendors care. In the past I’ve built Resume search engines using HRXML components. There are parsers, classifiers, viewers, search engines, and many other tools available for HRXML.
It’s a fairly well thought out spec in my opinion. Most issues I’ve run into have been from individuals that hate any use of XML and hastily convert the data to an ad hoc JSON format without thinking about why the XML is formatted the way it is. I presume this issue is why they created HR-JSON as a companion for uses where JSON is preferable.
It’s a fairly well thought out spec in my opinion. Most issues I’ve run into have been from individuals that hate any use of XML and hastily convert the data to an ad hoc JSON format without thinking about why the XML is formatted the way it is. I presume this issue is why they created HR-JSON as a companion for uses where JSON is preferable.
Let's make one. A universal format could help with bias and resume anxiety.
I would be glad if recruiters could differentiate between Java and Javascript.
I'm for it. The resume _is_ just data and the least interesting thing in an implication. The folio / work sample and the cover letter is the interesting part that will get you an interview.
[deleted]
There is Europass resumes which is quite common in Europe (At least in my country).
Is is a good think? For most of the job positions it is okay, but if you want to stand out you need to make something unique.
Is is a good think? For most of the job positions it is okay, but if you want to stand out you need to make something unique.
Startup idea - make a data format for resumes. Make a data format to job postings.
Automatically match them up, hiring can get pre-filtered resumes and hirees stop having to actively apply to jobs.
Automatically match them up, hiring can get pre-filtered resumes and hirees stop having to actively apply to jobs.
Also, why isn’t there a universal format for job postings?
Parsing CVs is awful. We outsource this entire feature to Daxtra, who do a very average job (but, to be fair, better than anything we have time to write!).
Somewhat related question, are there any universal data format for book, music and movie reviews? Then we can build a decentralized IMDb, goodreads, etc.
The question is based on a proufound misunderstanding. It's like a goalie saying people should standardize where they aim their penalty kicks.
The tl;dr is because we do not have one world government.
The universal data format for resume has attempted - both by public and private sector actors. The Europass CV is a good example of the former, a universal profile for all EU citizens, which can used to apply for any job posted on the platform. LinkedIn might be considered a private sector attempt of the same.
The issue that confronts both is adoption rate.
Without forcing it through via mandate, employers will continue to accept resumes in whichever format and so job seekers will continue to optimise for the format they think will give them the best chance with said employer.
Diversification comes from the simple fact that there is no single authority enforcing standardisation
The universal data format for resume has attempted - both by public and private sector actors. The Europass CV is a good example of the former, a universal profile for all EU citizens, which can used to apply for any job posted on the platform. LinkedIn might be considered a private sector attempt of the same.
The issue that confronts both is adoption rate.
Without forcing it through via mandate, employers will continue to accept resumes in whichever format and so job seekers will continue to optimise for the format they think will give them the best chance with said employer.
Diversification comes from the simple fact that there is no single authority enforcing standardisation
Because humans are too complex to fit into schemas.
The last thing we need is more HR departments automatically scanning collected résumés and ML apps "reviewing" them.
That’s LinkedIn.
Given that so many recruiters are pulling data from LinkedIn, that kind-of _is_ becoming the de
facto resume.
There's not even a universal name for resume. Or consensus on the number of pages. Or on the content.
I very much like to write my resume the way I think represents me the best. The last think I need is to tailor it so some programmer who struggles with parsing.
When hire I also like to receive custom resume that helps me to understand better why hire. Again I am totally uninterested tailoring my offering to formalized set of checkboxes concocted by some "industry expert".
When hire I also like to receive custom resume that helps me to understand better why hire. Again I am totally uninterested tailoring my offering to formalized set of checkboxes concocted by some "industry expert".
[deleted]
Why isn't there a universal data format for advertisements? Same question.
Because individuality is as valuable a commodity in the workplace as elsewhere.
Because part of the information is the representation of the resume itself.
The point of a resume is to stand out - not blend in with everyone else.
Because not all "2 years of C++ experience" are created equal.
Because small to medium business that are not in tech doesn't care.
Because not all people seeking jobs know how to write XML or JSON.
Can you name one universal data format that is so in practice?
The short answer is...there are many universal data formats for resumes [1]. Longer answer is that actually coming up with a universal data format that encompasses all the nuances of all fields that use resumes is actually HARD and no one wants to halt their hiring process long enough to solve that problem. Longest answer is that if you put your work history, education, and a title in a PDF, then you already are conforming to a universal data format...just not in the way you may be thinking, and data parsing is not the hardest problem in the hiring process.
Until choosing candidates actually becomes automated, no one will care enough to do this.
1: https://xkcd.com/927/
Until choosing candidates actually becomes automated, no one will care enough to do this.
1: https://xkcd.com/927/
Please insert girder.
To me linkedin is kinda standard resume alternative
[deleted]
I do not want to be automated that much.
Because life is Turing complete.
[deleted]
That's what LinkedIn is
LaTeX res.cls is basically the standard for anyone coming out of grad school
because it's too easy to make a competing data format of your own because resumes are relatively easy to model. So if you don't like something in the universal data format just spin up your own, with the features or the serialization you want, put it up as a Show HN and get some initial momentum.
It's not like making a data format for invoicing which even so has quite a large number of competing formats.
Relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/927/
It's not like making a data format for invoicing which even so has quite a large number of competing formats.
Relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/927/
well you have linkedin :P
there is one: PDF
I’ll start with my background, not for ego, but for context on what I know about why this remains a problem. I’ve written 3 Amazon Careers #1 Bestsellers on resume writing. A decade ago I ran the largest paid resume writing service in the country. I currently run Leet Resumes, the largest free professional writing service in the USA. My company did the famous eye tracking study showing that recruiters only spend 6 seconds on their initial screen of a resume. I’ve interviewed the CEOs and technical experts at the five largest resume parsing companies. And I regularly interview the CEOs of the ATSs.
So I’ve thought about this a lot :)
Properly understood, a resume is an advertisement to your future boss to get you interview requests for a job you can succeed in.
Why isn’t there a single format to do this? At the core, the reason is a combination of personal expression and xkcd #927: https://xkcd.com/927/
We already know what is the most effective resume format for hiring managers. We’ve done the research, the focus groups, the AB tests, and longitudinal studies. The reverse chronological, one-column structure with black web standard fonts only, a single level of bullet points, and a simple professional summary and technology section, is, hands down, the most effective format. Google has studied it as well and came to the same conclusions: https://www.leetresumes.com/blog/what-google-recruiters-look...
Almost all of the top search results on Google vary from this format, however, because search results are based on what’s popular, not what’s effective.
Psychologically, professionals have only one document in their lives to sum up their careers. Even though the true purpose of the resume is to get you interview requests for a job you can succeed in, professionals can’t help writing their resume to satisfy their own aesthetic or narrative goals, rather than the hiring manager’s. There’s a desire to express oneself on a resume in ways that are irrelevant, or often actually harmful, to the goal of getting hired.
At Leet, when we launched on Hacker News last year, we had great conversations with many of you about why simplifying your format would be for the best. I recall one experienced engineer who had custom built something in LaTeX to automatically generate his resume as he incrementally updated it. I pointed out that ATSs were unable to read the document because of how it was encoded. Multiply that story times 90 million professionals, each of whom may bring just a few small extremely damaging customizations to the process, and you’ll see why a single standard hasn’t been adopted from the professional’s side.
From the hiring manager’s side, standardizing a resume format has largely followed the xkcd story line. A company or coalition tries to introduce a standard, which varies from other best practices, and the end result is an additional competing standard.
So the long answer is that standards would be excellent, except for the fact that users won’t adhere to them :).
Happy to answer questions!
So I’ve thought about this a lot :)
Properly understood, a resume is an advertisement to your future boss to get you interview requests for a job you can succeed in.
Why isn’t there a single format to do this? At the core, the reason is a combination of personal expression and xkcd #927: https://xkcd.com/927/
We already know what is the most effective resume format for hiring managers. We’ve done the research, the focus groups, the AB tests, and longitudinal studies. The reverse chronological, one-column structure with black web standard fonts only, a single level of bullet points, and a simple professional summary and technology section, is, hands down, the most effective format. Google has studied it as well and came to the same conclusions: https://www.leetresumes.com/blog/what-google-recruiters-look...
Almost all of the top search results on Google vary from this format, however, because search results are based on what’s popular, not what’s effective.
Psychologically, professionals have only one document in their lives to sum up their careers. Even though the true purpose of the resume is to get you interview requests for a job you can succeed in, professionals can’t help writing their resume to satisfy their own aesthetic or narrative goals, rather than the hiring manager’s. There’s a desire to express oneself on a resume in ways that are irrelevant, or often actually harmful, to the goal of getting hired.
At Leet, when we launched on Hacker News last year, we had great conversations with many of you about why simplifying your format would be for the best. I recall one experienced engineer who had custom built something in LaTeX to automatically generate his resume as he incrementally updated it. I pointed out that ATSs were unable to read the document because of how it was encoded. Multiply that story times 90 million professionals, each of whom may bring just a few small extremely damaging customizations to the process, and you’ll see why a single standard hasn’t been adopted from the professional’s side.
From the hiring manager’s side, standardizing a resume format has largely followed the xkcd story line. A company or coalition tries to introduce a standard, which varies from other best practices, and the end result is an additional competing standard.
So the long answer is that standards would be excellent, except for the fact that users won’t adhere to them :).
Happy to answer questions!
Another factor people aren't mentioning -- even if such a format were to gain widespread adoption, along with the emergence of a side industry of Equifax-like companies that verify all the bullet points -- it would in effect amount to the backbone of a social credit system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System
And as such, it should be rigorously boycotted, no matter what benefit it may bring to the drones in HR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System
And as such, it should be rigorously boycotted, no matter what benefit it may bring to the drones in HR.
Wat? The article is just talking about automated software parsing different file formats. If you're worried about 'Equifax-like companies that verify all the bullet points' I'm sorry to inform you that's already happening. Not that I agree with this system but that's where we already are. People can't get jobs because the current zeitgeist in the industry is using algorithmic software to select candidates. The entire solution is just bad software built on a crap idea that has real world consequences. If we can't get something better at least having some standard format that we can feed this crap software it can actually parse is slightly less worse.
[Regarding] 'Equifax-like companies that verify all the bullet points' I'm sorry to inform you that's already happening.
Specifically?
Yes there are obviously companies that strip mine every nugget of "data" they can possibly find about an individual, and then pass this along to whoever may be willing to buy, garbage-in, garbage-out style.
But actually verifying that this information has anything to do with the real world (the way background check companies do) is a completely different, and very expensive endeavour.
Specifically?
Yes there are obviously companies that strip mine every nugget of "data" they can possibly find about an individual, and then pass this along to whoever may be willing to buy, garbage-in, garbage-out style.
But actually verifying that this information has anything to do with the real world (the way background check companies do) is a completely different, and very expensive endeavour.
Why isn't there a universal format for paintings? Why isn't there a universal format for love songs? Why isn't there a universal format for films?
[deleted]
There is. LinkedIn.
There is a universal format. It’s called Microsoft Word, and the primary purpose is so that recruiters can take whatever you put in there and change it however they want, so that they can present this to all of their clients for the entire future of the world. If you didn’t want this, then you shouldn’t have a résumé.
Documents like these shouldn't be automatically processed, they should be reviewed by humans. Reducing someone's life history to a list of educational institutions and employers feels robotic even for a software developer's mindset.
I understand that there are real life problems because companies do use automated processing on applications, but that kind of behaviour shouldn't be encouraged.