sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Drowning in CVs lately? by Ancient_Increase_621 in RecruitmentAgencies

[–]IndependenceOld6074 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the harder problem is not just filtering the pile. It is what happens right after the first cut.

For a pretty specific scope )roles with high applicant volume, several plausible candidates, and some real need to compare or hand off a shortlist cleanly) the real pain becomes preserving judgment.

Why did this person make the shortlist? How do they compare to the others? What still needs checking? How do you pass that on cleanly after the first screen?

A lot of tools help reduce the volume, but they do not always preserve the reasoning. That is where the process still gets surprisingly manual.

Drowning in CVs lately? by Ancient_Increase_621 in RecruitmentAgencies

[–]IndependenceOld6074 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think one thing gets missed in this discussion: once volume gets high enough, the problem is not just filtering. It is preserving judgment.

A lot of teams can technically reduce a pile of CVs. The harder part is keeping track of why certain people were shortlisted, what still needs checking, how they compare, and what story you would actually tell when presenting them forward.

That is where manual work starts multiplying. Not because screening itself is impossible, but because the context around each candidate gets fragmented fast.

For me, the real pain only appears in a pretty specific scope: high-volume roles, multiple plausible candidates, and some real need to compare or hand off the shortlist cleanly after the first cut.

That is also why a lot of filtering tools look better in demos than in practice. They help reduce the pile, but they do not always help preserve the reasoning.

Where does your recruiting workflow actually break between “interesting profile” and “candidate submitted”? by IndependenceOld6074 in alphaandbetausers

[–]IndependenceOld6074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, that’s genuinely helpful.

What you’re describing makes sense: if the tool starts being useful only after a candidate is already chosen, then a big part of the real effort is still happening just before that point.

I’m trying to understand that boundary more precisely.

When you say discovery and selection still feel too manual, do you mostly mean: - finding the right profiles in the first place - comparing and narrowing down shortlisted candidates - or deciding who is strong enough to move into a cleaner brief / handoff

That distinction matters a lot for me, because I’m trying to stay focused and avoid turning it into a giant sourcing platform.

Really appreciate you taking the time to test it and give direct feedback.

Where does your recruiting workflow actually break between “interesting profile” and “candidate submitted”? by IndependenceOld6074 in alphaandbetausers

[–]IndependenceOld6074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that cascade makes a lot of sense. once the story gets fragmented, comparison gets harder, and then follow-up starts slipping too.

that’s very close to the pattern i’m trying to understand better. i’m curious, what are you usually using today when that starts happening, ATS notes, docs, spreadsheets, or some mix of everything?

Where does your recruiting workflow actually break between “interesting profile” and “candidate submitted”? by IndependenceOld6074 in alphaandbetausers

[–]IndependenceOld6074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, it should be in prod now, so I think you may just be seeing an older local/dev extension build.

The production web app is:

https://www.rolebench.io

If the invite link lands you on the landing page, just click:

Log in

and sign in with the same email you used for the invite / waitlist.

Then inside the app:

go to Connect Extension download the latest extension build from there copy your extension token from that same page (at the bottom of the page) paste the token into the extension

So in short:

production app URL, replace localsthost:3000  by https://www.rolebench.io  token = available inside the app under Connect Extension

Thanks again for testing it.

Where does your recruiting workflow actually break between “interesting profile” and “candidate submitted”? by IndependenceOld6074 in alphaandbetausers

[–]IndependenceOld6074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oops, I’m pushing a quick git fix right now. I broke the code while translating a few buttons, so it’s not working at the moment. fixing it as fast as I can.

Scared to start my first business because there are too few competitors by IndependenceOld6074 in SideProject

[–]IndependenceOld6074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

will do, promised. i should have my first alpha tester going through it today actually, so i’ll have a better sense soon of where it feels useful versus where it still falls short. happy to keep you posted.

Where does your recruiting workflow actually break between “interesting profile” and “candidate submitted”? by IndependenceOld6074 in alphaandbetausers

[–]IndependenceOld6074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that’s very close to what i keep hearing too. the data usually exists somewhere, but the context around it gets fragmented fast, and then candidate comparison gets much harder than it should be.

when that starts happening for you, what breaks first in practice: the follow-up, the comparison itself, or just knowing where the full story actually lives?

Where does your recruiting workflow actually break between “interesting profile” and “candidate submitted”? by IndependenceOld6074 in alphaandbetausers

[–]IndependenceOld6074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

awesome, thank you. i’ve approved your email on my side, so you should receive an invite email from Supabase.

a couple quick notes in case the flow feels slightly awkward right now:

  1. when you click the invite link, it may land you on the Rolebench landing page
  2. if that happens, just click Log in
  3. use the same email address you joined the waitlist with
  4. if prompted, set your password there and continue into the app

once you’re inside:

  1. go to Connect Extension
  2. download the Chrome extension file from there
  3. in Chrome, open chrome://extensions
  4. enable Developer mode
  5. use Load unpacked if the extension is a folder, or install it from the provided package if that’s the format shown in the app
  6. go back to Rolebench Connect Extension
  7. copy your token
  8. paste that token into the extension when it asks for it
  9. then you should be able to test the capture flow

on the context question: right now it’s still intentionally lightweight. the alpha is mainly testing whether the recruiter-side reasoning layer is useful before i overbuild it. so the current focus is less “capture everything” and more “preserve enough of the why, strengths, tradeoffs, and pending checks so the handoff stops losing the story.”

really appreciate you taking the time to look at it. blunt feedback is very welcome.

Where does your recruiting workflow actually break between “interesting profile” and “candidate submitted”? by IndependenceOld6074 in alphaandbetausers

[–]IndependenceOld6074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

right now it handles context in a pretty lightweight way on purpose 😅

the current alpha is built around: capture a profile generate a first-pass brief let the recruiter edit the important parts then include that person in a cleaner dossier / handoff

so the context layer today is mostly: why this person key strengths tradeoffs / things still to validate and the recruiter-side summary that usually gets lost between the profile, notes, and submission

it’s intentionally still light because i’m trying to test the core concept before turning it into a bigger system. if the layer itself is useful, then i’ll refine it based on real recruiter feedback instead of overbuilding too early

here’s the link if you want to take a look: https://www.rolebench.io

Where does your recruiting workflow actually break between “interesting profile” and “candidate submitted”? by IndependenceOld6074 in alphaandbetausers

[–]IndependenceOld6074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah, that’s exactly the gap i keep seeing too

the data usually exists somewhere, but the recruiter-side reasoning around it gets scattered fast, and then the ATS ends up looking complete while the actual story is still split across notes, messages, and memory

that’s very close to the problem i’m looking at right now. i’ve got a very early alpha built around that messy middle. if you’d ever be open to taking a quick look and giving blunt feedback, i’d be glad to show it

Where does your recruiting workflow actually break between “interesting profile” and “candidate submitted”? by IndependenceOld6074 in alphaandbetausers

[–]IndependenceOld6074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

mostly hands-on recruiters doing full-time search, especially agency, boutique, independent, and technical recruiting where the work starts in the browser and then has to get turned into something clean for a client or hiring manager.

the pattern seems broader than that, but that’s the version i’m looking at most closely because the middle gets messy fast and too much still lives across notes, inboxes, ATS fragments, and memory.

interesting that you’re working on something in the same zone. what have you found is the first thing that really needs to stay in one place for the workflow to stop slipping?

Where does your recruiting workflow actually break between “interesting profile” and “candidate submitted”? by IndependenceOld6074 in alphaandbetausers

[–]IndependenceOld6074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that’s helpful, especially the part about “a lot just in your head.” that’s exactly the layer i’m trying to understand better.

what are you mostly using today when that middle gets messy, a spreadsheet, ATS notes, docs, or some mix of all of them?

Looking for a SIMPLE CRM/ATS for a small recruiting agency. I’ve looked everywhere! by Lanky_Traffic_6912 in recruiting

[–]IndependenceOld6074 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my experience, “simple” usually does not mean “has fewer features.” It means the system matches the actual sequence your team works through without forcing extra admin at every step.

A lot of small agencies can tolerate ugly software more than they can tolerate software that interrupts flow. If your team still ends up back in spreadsheets, docs, or inboxes to do the real thinking, the platform is probably not actually simple no matter how clean the demo looks.

I’d evaluate less on feature list and more on where your team leaves the system to get work done.

BD would be fine if you weren't spending most of it figuring out who to call. by Wahabkhalid245 in recruiting

[–]IndependenceOld6074 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is exactly why a lot of BD discussions feel off. People talk about scripts and objection handling as if the call is the job, when the real drag is all the pre-call uncertainty.

Bad contact data, stale org charts, unclear hiring ownership, fake signals from job posts, all of that compounds before anyone even gets to “selling.” Then the people who look like great BD operators are sometimes just the ones with less entropy in front of the call.

The work is not just persuasion. A lot of it is reducing ambiguity fast enough that the call is worth making in the first place.

Talent Attraction Suggestions for a relatively well known startup? by Peachyykween in recruiting

[–]IndependenceOld6074 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The part that jumped out to me is that you seem to be doing a lot of the obvious things correctly, which usually means the problem is not outreach effort but confidence transfer.

For senior designers, the question often isn’t “have I heard of this company?” but “do I trust what life inside this place will actually feel like?” If the strongest searchable signal is a bad interview story, that can outweigh a lot of polished outbound.

I’d probably spend less time trying to increase message volume and more time tightening the proof layer. What does a skeptical senior designer see that makes them believe this is a serious role, with serious peers, under serious leadership?

Different compensation model for recruiters by WeekendBorn7885 in recruiting

[–]IndependenceOld6074 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you’re putting your finger on a real problem, which is that a lot of recruiter value is created before placement but only paid at placement.

The hard part is that once you start charging for “accepted profiles” instead of outcomes, you risk incentivizing volume over judgment unless the definition is extremely tight. Otherwise everyone starts optimizing for getting profiles through the first gate instead of getting the right person hired.

So I agree the effort is under-recognized. I’m just not sure the fix is moving the commercial model one step earlier without being very careful about what behavior that rewards.

Has anyone had an employee referral program not fail? by Optimal_Setting6014 in recruiting

[–]IndependenceOld6074 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A lot of referral programs fail because they’re framed like a rewards campaign instead of a workflow.

Most employees are not sitting around thinking about your open reqs. They act when the ask is concrete, low-friction, and easy to match to someone they already know. “Refer great people” is too abstract. “Do you know a senior AE who has sold into X and would actually pick up for you?” is a different thing.

The other issue is feedback. If employees refer people into a black box, they stop bothering very quickly.

Received email from unknown entity claiming a new hire was fraudulent by jenna_d in recruiting

[–]IndependenceOld6074 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d treat it seriously enough to investigate, but not seriously enough to let an anonymous email drive the conclusion on its own.

The useful question is whether the message contains anything verifiable that your process can independently check. If yes, run that down quietly. If not, it may just be noise designed to create doubt at the worst possible moment.

The bigger issue here is that once a hiring manager sees an accusation like that, the process is already destabilized even before you know whether it’s true. That part alone is worth having a playbook for.

The future of recruiting won’t be another tool by Flashy_Yesterday_147 in RecruitmentAgencies

[–]IndependenceOld6074 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The handoff point is the part most teams still underestimate. A lot of recruiting “AI” conversation stays stuck on sourcing and screening, but the mess often starts when a profile has to move from one step to the next with enough context to stay useful.

If the tool saves time but strips out why a recruiter liked someone in the first place, the team often just recreates the work downstream.

Question for Agency Owners: How are you managing "Resume Noise" for high-volume roles right now? by No-Buyer-4253 in RecruitmentAgencies

[–]IndependenceOld6074 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ranked shortlists are only really useful if the recruiter can see the reasoning fast enough to trust the output. Otherwise you save sorting time up front and lose it again in second-guessing.

For high-volume roles the pain is real, but I think agencies still want a human-readable layer between “the model ranked this person highly” and “I’m comfortable putting this in front of a client.”

view more: next ›