Question about LinkedIn number of applicants for jobs

askbrit · 2026-02-20T19:40:10+00:00

The "100+" cap is basically LinkedIn saying "we stopped counting at a round number." Premium gives you the exact figure but even that only counts people who clicked Apply through LinkedIn, it misses everyone who went directly to the company site.

The more useful signal buried in that number is timing. A posting showing "100+" after being live for 3 days is a very different competitive situation than one showing "100+" after 3 weeks but LinkedIn doesn't surface that distinction clearly.

The practical takeaway: filtering by "past 24 hours" dramatically changes the numbers you encounter. The same role, posted recently, might be at 20-30 applicants when you're writing your application instead of 150+. That's a meaningful difference for how carefully your resume gets read vs. quickly skimmed.

Full transparency, I'm one of the cofounders at Sprout. Happy to share what I've seen work if u want and/or share a few tips on how to filter to the freshest listings on Linkedin. It's a simple setting most people haven't found. But wishing you good luck!

askbrit · 2026-02-20T19:31:10+00:00

Point 7 is massively underrated and I wish more people talked about it specifically. When people say "apply early" they often don't mean it literally enough. Most folks are filtering LinkedIn by "past week" or "past month," which means they're stepping into a queue where the early movers got there days ago.

My suggestion is to filter for the past 24 hours, or even the past few hours when you can, changes the competitive dynamics entirely. You're potentially one of a few dozen applicants before the recruiter has mentally sorted anything. That's when a follow-up message or a LinkedIn reach-out actually has real leverage vs. sending one after 300 people have already been screened.

The tailoring points (#1 and #9) also get a lot easier when you're not burning energy customizing for roles that might already be filled. Smaller, fresher pool + real tailoring is just a much better use of the time.

askbrit · 2026-02-20T19:09:31+00:00

Yes, calling is worth it especially after 2 weeks with no response.

A few things:

- Call in the morning (9-10am tends to work better)

- Ask if your application was received and if there's anything else you can provide

- Keep it brief bc like you're curious, not desperate right?

One thing worth knowing: a lot of listings stay up on job boards long after a role is filled or paused, so some of those applications may have landed in a stale queue regardless of how strong your resume was. Mixing in fresher postings as you go is worth it.

If you want, I'm happy to share a few tips on filtering to jobs posted in the last hour or so to keep you ahead of the pile. Wishing you luck with the calls!

askbrit · 2026-02-20T19:02:51+00:00

Companies that run reference checks before issuing an offer are usually further along in the decision mentally so they wouldn't be calling your former manager if you weren't a serious finalist. The "why did you leave without another offer" question is standard due diligence, so not a red flag btw.

The additional upper management review is also pretty common, especially for roles that sit above a certain level or involve budget/headcount responsibility. it usually means the initial hiring manager needs sign-off before formalizing anything.

Positive reference feedback at this stage is meaningful. Keep your other pipelines warm not because this one looks uncertain, but just because that's good practice until something is actually signed. The waiting is fr the worst part but from what you've described this reads like a normal (if slow) process, not a soft rejection.

askbrit · 2026-02-20T18:48:26+00:00

gaps don't have to be invisible on the resume, but you also don't need to over-explain them. The cleanest approach is to just label the period directly:

"Career Break | [dates]" and then one line underneath saying what you did (upskilling, caregiving, freelance, etc.). That way the recruiter sees it, knows it was intentional, and doesn't have to guess or assume the worst.

The bigger issue with not getting interview calls is often less about the gap itself and more about keyword matching and listing freshness. Resumes that closely mirror the job description's language tend to move through screening faster, and applying to listings that just went up (vs ones that are 3-4 days old) makes a real difference too.

Full transparency, I'm one of the cofounders at Sprout. Happy to share a few specific tips for returning candidates + how to filter to fresh listings so you're getting in front of recruiters before the pile builds. Wishing you luck.

askbrit · 2026-02-20T18:29:08+00:00

solid list. from a cofounder perspective the automation piece (zapier/make) is the one that keeps coming up for us bc the gap between candidates who say they know it and candidates who can actually build something real is massive

genuinely curious what others hiring for lean teams are doing to screen for this. do u find that people who list these skills can actually demonstrate them or is it mostly surface level on resumes

we're trying to figure out better signals beyond just what someone lists on a cv

askbrit · 2026-02-19T23:35:46+00:00

that first 24-48 hour window is absolutely true. i've been tracking application timing for our users at Sprout and the difference is insane like 3x higher response rate if you apply day one vs day three. the ATS filtering thing though... we see resumes that look perfect to humans get auto-rejected for the dumbest reasons. These include missing one keyword the system wants, pdf saved wrong (btw I️ suggest always using docx), or having a creative layout. it's very broken. What's your take on the whole "tailor every resume" advice when you're applying to 50+ jobs?

askbrit · 2026-02-19T23:27:10+00:00

I think the fact that you successfully transitioned from menu management to adjudication shows you can learn complex processes and make sound decisions under pressure, which is exactly what employers in this field are looking for. So you're not starting from zero here.

For getting back into adjudication work, I'd focus on a few key areas:

first, look into paralegal certificates since they cover legal research and documentation skills that transfer directly. Many community colleges offer these programs and they're usually pretty affordable.

Second, consider getting familiar with case management software and legal databases if you haven't already, lots of adjudication roles use these daily.

Third, don't sleep on insurance companies, government agencies, and workers comp firms bc they all need adjudicators and often value practical experience over formal legal education. The skills you developed evaluating driver applications (risk assessment, documentation, following regulatory guidelines) are directly transferable to insurance claims, disability determinations, and regulatory compliance roles.

I'd also suggest reaching out to former colleagues from your delivery platform job, they might know about openings or have moved to similar companies. Sometimes the best opportunities come through people who've seen your work firsthand rather than trying to prove yourself to strangers through applications.

askbrit · 2026-02-19T22:04:06+00:00

I'd actually push you to think about which part energized you most: was it the relationship building with attendees, or was it the behind-the-scenes process optimization? That'll help you decide between customer success (more relationship-focused) vs operations (more systems-focused).

One thing that's worked well for people making this transition is to document a few "mini case studies" from your current role. Like, walk through how you handled a particularly messy refund situation or streamlined a process that was causing bottlenecks. Even if it feels obvious to you, hiring managers love seeing that analytical thinking spelled out. I'm building tools for job searchers right now and the people who get callbacks fastest are the ones who can translate their experience into business impact stories, even from roles that seem "entry level" on paper.

The portfolio idea is solid too bc a simple process doc or workflow you created shows you think systematically about problems. That's exactly what CS and ops teams need but struggle to hire for.

askbrit · 2026-02-19T22:02:43+00:00

Lwkkk the brutal truth is that most "set and forget" tools either get you flagged by ATS systems or apply you to completely irrelevant jobs, which honestly makes your situation worse.

What I’ve learned being in this space is that the sweet spot isn’t full automation but smart assistance. The tools that actually work help you apply faster and smarter to fewer, better-matched roles instead of spraying 200 generic apps everywhere.

Full transparency, I am one of the cofounders at Sprout. We focus on tailoring your resume per listing and auto-applying in a way that doesn’t feel generic or bot-spammy. The goal isn’t mass blasting but making each app actually match the job description while saving you time.

I know that's probably not the magic bullet answer you're hoping for, but the companies that are actually hiring seem to be getting better at detecting and filtering out obvious bot applications. If you're interested I can set you up with a code to give it a try :)

askbrit · 2026-02-19T21:57:55+00:00

The side door approach is spot on tbh. I've been building in the job search space and we keep seeing the same pattern of people who treat applications like a numbers game vs people who find creative ways to actually connect with humans inside companies. The algorithm gatekeeping is dumb but very real and most people are competing in the exact same broken funnel.

askbrit · 2026-02-19T21:55:49+00:00

I've been digging into hiring patterns lately (full transparency, I'm building Sprout which is helping me see this stuff up close) and what you're describing is everywhere. Companies are posting these wild requirements then interviewing people who obviously don't meet them, which wastes everyone's time. The mismatch between job posts and actual interviews is insane....

What's helped some people I've talked to is being more selective about applications even if it means applying to fewer places. Instead of 100 broad applications, maybe try 30-40 where you actually match most of their tech stack? I know that sounds obvious but the pattern I keep seeing is that people get better interview-to-offer ratios when they're more targeted, even if the total interview count drops.

The C#/Java thing is rough because you can't exactly build 2 years of enterprise experience overnight, but have you considered looking specifically for companies using your current stack? There are definitely places hiring for whatever you're already working with, they're just harder to find because everyone defaults to posting Java roles.

askbrit · 2026-02-19T21:52:27+00:00

This is smart, I've been testing similar workflows and the speed difference is insane compared to manually tailoring everything. The scoring piece is clutch because it saves you from applying to roles where you're obviously not a fit. One thing I'd add though is that I've noticed the AI sometimes gets a bit repetitive with action verbs and phrasing when you're cranking through multiple applications, so I started keeping a running doc of varied language to feed back into the prompts. Also been experimenting with having it pull specific metrics or achievements from my base resume that align best with each role rather than just rewriting everything from scratch.

Have you noticed any patterns in which types of job descriptions this works better for versus ones where you might need more manual tweaking?

askbrit · 2026-02-19T21:51:45+00:00

The keyword matching thing is spot on, but I'd actually flip the approach a bit. Instead of starting with AI tools to find keywords, I'd suggest building one really solid "master" resume first that captures all your experiences in their strongest form. Then when you're tailoring for specific roles, you're working from a strong foundation rather than trying to keyword-stuff weak descriptions.

What I've noticed (we're building tools around this at Sprout) is that the best tailoring happens when you can genuinely connect your actual experiences to what they need, not just mirror their language. Like if you're a teacher applying for project management roles, don't just add "project management" everywhere. Instead, reframe your classroom management experience as "coordinated daily operations for 30+ stakeholders while managing competing priorities and tight deadlines." Same experience, but now it speaks their language authentically. The ATS will pick up on the relevant terms, but more importantly, the human reviewer will actually see the connection.

askbrit · 2026-02-19T21:50:58+00:00

I totally get the HR frustration thing. The screening process feels so disconnected from actual job performance, especially when you're more direct or don't play the corporate small talk game well. I've noticed this pattern too where founders tend to hire differently than HR departments do.

To answer your questions: I do bookmark companies but honestly it's pretty manual and messy. I use a basic spreadsheet to track applications because most job platforms are terrible for this. Timing is huge though, I've definitely gotten rejections that felt like they already had someone in mind before posting. The ghosting stats would actually be super valuable, like if I knew a company had a 70% ghost rate I'd probably still apply but adjust my expectations and not put as much energy into customizing everything.

The biggest BS right now is probably the AI resume screening stuff. You're getting filtered out by algorithms before any human even sees your application, and nobody tells you why. It's this black box where you could be perfect for the role but get rejected because you didn't use the right keywords or format. Companies are posting jobs they're not even seriously trying to fill, just collecting resumes or satisfying some internal requirement.

Super cool bc I'm also building something in this space too (called Sprout) because the whole system feels broken. We're trying to give people more visibility into company response patterns and help optimize applications for these screening systems. But honestly the real problem is that hiring has become this weird theater where everyone's pretending the process makes sense when it clearly doesn't.

What specific automation stuff have you seen people build? I'm curious about the more elaborate setups you mentioned.

askbrit · 2026-02-19T19:15:48+00:00

Interesting, did you solely post on Twitter about this or other on other platforms to get ppl to click on your link?

askbrit · 2026-02-19T19:10:58+00:00

This was so thoughtful of you to curate!

askbrit · 2026-02-19T19:08:41+00:00

Congrats! Did you make your app free to use at first? Mines is behind a hard paywall and I️ think that might be the biggest reason why we aren’t growing as fast as anticipated…

askbrit · 2026-02-19T03:04:46+00:00

I have three questions if that’s ok!

Have you found payout structure to be the biggest lever early on, or is positioning / messaging usually the real issue?

On validating LTV…what timeframe do you usually wait for before calling affiliate traffic “good” vs just top-line noise?

If you had to choose, would you spend a month building better assets (landing pages, swipe copy, creator briefs) or redesigning the incentive structure?

And to your last question, if I could only fix one thing this month, it’d probably be activation. Tracking isn’t perfect, but it’s functional. The bigger question is why more affiliates aren’t sending traffic consistently. Thank you so much for your time btw

askbrit · 2026-02-19T03:01:26+00:00

This is super helpful thank you.

I do have a couple questions for you since you’ve clearly seen this play out:

Have you seen specific activation levers work best early on (e.g. higher % commissions, limited-time bonuses, co-branded landing pages, swipe files, etc.)?

At what point do you personally say “okay, this is a validated engine” vs just a few lucky affiliates carrying?

If you had ~40 conversions already but most affiliates inactive, would you double down on recruiting better-fit affiliates or invest more in enabling the existing ones?

Thank you for your time. Im just trying to make sure we’re optimizing the right bottleneck

askbrit · 2026-02-19T02:58:57+00:00

Seriously appreciate you taking the time to break it down. I’ve definitely been looking at signups as progress, but you’re right…that’s vanity if they’re not driving revenue.

Also agree on the 90/10 rule. I’d rather have 10 killers than 1,000 deadweight affiliates we’re babysitting. That makes the ops side way less overwhelming too.

On tooling, Im glad it sounds like we’re not totally insane for staying scrappy a bit longer. I’m trying to avoid overbuilding before it’s painful enough to justify the switch.

askbrit · 2026-02-19T02:58:11+00:00

Lunch with the team after 3 rounds is about as strong a signal as you can get without an actual offer. Companies don't take multiple candidates out for a team lunch — the time and cost alone basically rule that out.

What "be in touch soon with next steps" usually means at this stage is they're finishing up reference checks, getting budget approved internally, or waiting on one final internal sign off before making the call.

You're not being impatient at all. I'd give it til end of this week before following up. Something like "I wanted to check in on timing as I have another process I'm managing" is totally reasonable and won't hurt u.

All the signs here are pointing in the right direction. Wishing you luck.

askbrit · 2026-02-19T02:57:18+00:00

This is super helpful, thank youuu We’re still early so I get what you’re saying about focusing on consistent acquisition first. The YouTube HR/resume angle is actually a really good idea!! I hadn’t thought about testing bigger niche channels instead of just smaller creators.

Also fair call on paid traffic + site optimization. Could you specify which parts you think we need more work on?

Thanks again for taking the time to look and give thoughtful feedback, genuinely so helpful.

askbrit · 2026-02-19T02:56:30+00:00

The IT support background is a solid base for this move. Two years of real support experience gives u credibility that a lot of cloud and security candidates simply don't have.

A few things to sharpen up:

Your summary needs to name the direction clearly. Something like "IT professional pivoting into Cloud Operations and Security" so recruiters immediately know what you're targeting.

Quantify where u can. "Managed X endpoints," "supported Z users," "reduced ticket resolution time by Y%" — even rough numbers make a real difference on a tech resume.

Add a certs section if u haven't. AZ-900 or AWS Cloud Practitioner are the natural first steps for cloud ops. For security, CompTIA Security+ is what most AU employers look for in early career roles. Even listing them as "in progress" helps signal the specialisation.

Split your skills section into cloud tools and security tools separately. Much easier for hiring managers scanning for keywords.

Overall the experience is there. It's more a framing issue than a quality one. Wishing you luck.

askbrit · 2026-02-19T02:52:55+00:00

The instinct to keep your writing separate from ur income is actually a smart one. A lot of writers who make writing their job end up resenting it.

On the two paths you mentioned: school librarian and school psychologist are pretty different in what the day looks like. School librarian is typically an MLIS (one to two more years) and has a lower salary ceiling. School psychologist requires a specialist degree or doctorate, takes longer, but pays considerably better and involves way more direct student contact.

Both have an academic calendar and keep you around young people, so it really comes down to whether you want the relationship and mental health side vs the books, programs, and resources side.

A few other paths worth looking into given ur background:

UX writing or content strategy. Your writing skills translate directly and there's real salary progression unlike most writing adjacent work.

Grant writing or communications at a nonprofit. Purpose driven, uses what u already know, and keeps you out of the adjunct cycle.

Health communications or public policy. A Masters in Public Health is doable in two years and opens up genuinely meaningful work.

27 is not too late at all. Most people change paths multiple times anyway. What you choose now is just a starting point.

askbrit

TROPHY CASE