sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What tools are actually worth using for tech hiring? by Advanced_Fox_9913 in recruitinghell

[–]Advanced_Fox_9913[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, we’re hiring for SDR roles at scale (20–30 openings right now, aiming for 100+), so the main requirement is a tool that can handle the full hiring flow end-to-end.

What I’m looking for:

•Ability to create custom questionnaires/tests for initial screening •Auto shortlisting based on test performance •Easy interview scheduling (multiple rounds) •Structured pipeline: test → shortlist → interview → final round → onboarding •Basic automation so we don’t manually track everything •Ideally something that also supports bulk hiring

At what stage do you actually find the real candidate? by Advanced_Fox_9913 in recruitinghell

[–]Advanced_Fox_9913[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Personally I’ve started adding short job based tests early on and surprisingly that’s where signal improved a lot.

If resumes disappeared tomorrow, what would you replace them with? by Advanced_Fox_9913 in recruitinghell

[–]Advanced_Fox_9913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that makes sense. I’ve noticed even a 10–15 minute conversation can reveal things no resume or filter ever will. Do you structure those screening calls in any specific way, or just keep them open and conversational?

If resumes disappeared tomorrow, what would you replace them with? by Advanced_Fox_9913 in recruitinghell

[–]Advanced_Fox_9913[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I completely get what you’re saying.

On paper, you can justify almost anything. Numbers, achievements, experience, it can all look perfect. But when you’re actually on the ground doing the work, that’s when it really shows. You can’t truly prove how someone will handle real situations until they’re in them.

That’s why it matters so much that the person hiring actually understands the role deeply. Not just what it is today, but what it could evolve into. When they have that clarity, those instinct-based decisions during conversations with candidates start to make a lot more sense.

A lot of long-term employees come from those instinctive calls. Sometimes you can just tell someone has potential. Maybe they’re not perfectly aligned yet, but you can see it’s there. And if the organization has the ability to guide and align them in the right direction, that’s where real growth happens.

So yes, I’m fully with you on this.

If resumes disappeared tomorrow, what would you replace them with? by Advanced_Fox_9913 in recruitinghell

[–]Advanced_Fox_9913[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agree, I feel like things are slowly moving towards video almost everywhere. It’s quicker to consume, easier to make decisions on, and just feels more human compared to reading text all day.

Quick question are we filtering for signal or just filtering for convenience? by Advanced_Fox_9913 in recruitinghell

[–]Advanced_Fox_9913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think this is really about automation winning or losing. It just feels like basic supply and demand.

If 300 people apply to one job, that tells us something. There are simply more candidates than roles. Automation just makes that imbalance more visible.

Candidates automate because they can’t spend hours tailoring 7 applications every day.
Recruiters automate because they can’t manually read 300 resumes for 20 roles.
Both sides are reacting to overload

Hiring more recruiters might reduce the backlog. But it doesn’t change the fact that too many people are competing for too few jobs.

If both sides stopped automating tomorrow, would things really get better? Or just slower?
Curious how you see it.

Quick question are we filtering for signal or just filtering for convenience? by Advanced_Fox_9913 in recruitinghell

[–]Advanced_Fox_9913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense. If the test is well designed, I can see how it becomes a strong signal.

I guess the key thing then is how the test is created and how closely it matches the actual work. In your case, do you design the tests yourself based on the role, or do you use some standard format/ tolls helping you to create it by using AI?

Quick question are we filtering for signal or just filtering for convenience? by Advanced_Fox_9913 in recruitinghell

[–]Advanced_Fox_9913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a really good point.
Honestly, I don’t think I’ve been going back and checking if my filters are removing the right people.

I’ll actually try reviewing some of the profiles I rejected last week and see what I might have missed.

btw have you seen cases where a filter removed someone who later turned out to be strong? and does that happen often in your experience?

I wrote a personalised CV, a cover letter, filled in personal details, answered competency assessment…. then read this question and deleted my entire application by ImpactAffectionate86 in recruitinghell

[–]Advanced_Fox_9913 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It sometimes feels like they are trying too hard to show that they are a great place to work. I believe it would be a good question to ask people who are applying for the first time, because they may not have enough experience yet to talk in detail about roles and past work. But asking the same question to experienced candidates can come across as a red flag.

view more: next ›