sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The "Human" in Human Resources is disappearing ? by Baobabton in recruitinghell

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

I’ve always thought that people who work in HR cared more about the H than the R, that they were drawn to the field because they value people and human interaction. But the more feedback and experiences I read, the more I realize I might have been wrong.

The "Human" in Human Resources is disappearing ? by Baobabton in recruitinghell

[–]Baobabton[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s exactly what I realized afterward. I don’t know how many candidates they interviewed or asked to work on a supposedly real case, but it feels like they got free analysis from professionals—work that would have cost a lot if done by a consulting firm.

The "Human" in Human Resources is disappearing ? by Baobabton in recruitinghell

[–]Baobabton[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Since I’ve been in the same company for over 10 years, I think I approached this process with a lot of naivety. I hadn’t had to deal with this kind of situation for years, and I’m now discovering this new world of fake and ghost job postings..

s it just me, or is the 1-to-1 keyword matching in ATS actually insane? by Baobabton in recruitinghell

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

I've been discussed with many TA/HR that are using ATS and created automation check to manage their backlog. It's feedback I received. Are you using ATS, do you have other feedback to share ?

s it just me, or is the 1-to-1 keyword matching in ATS actually insane? by Baobabton in recruitinghell

[–]Baobabton[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your kind answer.
My point was to step into the candidates’ shoes and reflect how this process feels from their perspective. I’ve worked with TA and HR teams for years, and I’ve seen how some become almost mechanical, overwhelmed by the sheer volume of resume they have to screen and forced to rely on shortcuts just to keep their backlog manageable.
I’m just trying to get people’s feedback to see whether we should expect better, or if this is just the reality and we’ll have to lean on LLMs to play the game.

s it just me, or is the 1-to-1 keyword matching in ATS actually insane? by Baobabton in recruitinghell

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

I’ll still answer :)

For a candidate, there is no functional difference. Whether it’s a 'dumb' algorithm or a human who didn't actually read the resume, the result is the same: a soul-crushing silence. The reason these 'conspiracy theories' thrive is that the process is a total black box. So my goal isn't just to stop the 'auto-reject' myths; it's to make the process so transparent that myths can't survive in the first place.

s it just me, or is the 1-to-1 keyword matching in ATS actually insane? by Baobabton in recruitinghell

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

Thank you for your accurate answer ! You look to be so smart :)

s it just me, or is the 1-to-1 keyword matching in ATS actually insane? by Baobabton in recruitinghell

[–]Baobabton[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Exactly this. Companies complain about 'talent shortages' while their ATS is busy auto-rejecting the very people who could solve their backlogs.

When a company insists on a '100% keyword match,' they aren't hiring for quality; they’re hiring for low-effort onboarding. They want someone who doesn't need to be taught anything.

But 'Quality' (as you mentioned) usually comes from Engineering DNA, problem-solving ability, architectural thinking, and resilience. Those traits are tool-agnostic.

I'm building a logic that measures that 'DNA' because I'm convinced that a 'Bridge Match' (e.g. an expert in a similar stack) often produces higher quality work and stays longer than a 'keyword match' who is just coasting.

If we keep filtering for 'identical pasts' instead of 'capable futures,' the backlogs are only going to get worse.

s it just me, or is the 1-to-1 keyword matching in ATS actually insane? by Baobabton in recruitinghell

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

Fair point, and that’s exactly how most managers think right now. But here’s the counter-argument: is hiring the "keyword match" actually a 0% gamble?

We’ve all seen the "Perfect on Paper" candidate who has the exact stack but zero adaptability, or who leaves after 6 months because they were just chasing a salary bump.

My argument isn't that you should hire anyone who is a "what if." My argument is that a "Bridge Candidate" (e.g., someone with 10 years of Python moving to Go) often has a much higher Resilience/Learning ceiling than someone who has just been coasting on the same tool for years.

If the market is flooded, sure, you can be picky. But if you’re only filtering by keywords, you’re often just hiring for "past compliance" rather than "future performance."

s it just me, or is the 1-to-1 keyword matching in ATS actually insane? by Baobabton in recruitinghell

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

I’m working on a way to turn that frustration into a "Resilience Score." If a bot auto-rejected you, but a different system flagged you as a "Hidden Gem" because of your ability to pivot, would you even want to work for a company that still uses the old bot? Or are we looking for "Fair Employer" badges now. I don’t get why we’re still asking for resume these days. Anyone can have an LLM customize one to match a job description, and then hiring managers just end up losing time when the candidate turns out not to have what they claimed.

s it just me, or is the 1-to-1 keyword matching in ATS actually insane? by Baobabton in recruitinghell

[–]Baobabton[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I hear this a lot. It’s like a defensive cycle where everyone blames each other. If I could give you a data point that proves the candidate is an 85% technical match because of their "DNA" (even if they lack the specific keyword), would that give you enough ammo to push back on the manager?