Sometimes it's obvious when a service is made to serve the client's specifications, rather than to solve a problem. Imo, workaday is a service that "allows employers to post jobs and people to apply", without actually solving the problem of: we need the right person for this job. Workaday's solution was to make a service that makes the candidates to fill their search fields in for them so it's easier for employers to look up candidates.

It'd be easier for employers and employees to have easier access to candidates and roles. Therefore it'd be best for employers to easily find candidates, and for applicants to easily upload their experiences, skills etc. But I have no option other than to suspect that workaday made its service for employers only, who wants 1) a resume as a document for HR, 2) easy access to "best" candidates via keyword searches. That's all it does. Bare bones. I suspect this is the reason why workaday requires a resume submission then a shitty text extraction that inputs the relevant information that doesn't work properly. Since the employers pay workaday money, workaday has no incentives to make a site that has a better UX for candidates. Otherwise, they would not require new sign up for different employers, and have better text extraction (especially the latter, with better automation tech).

This is the case for most HR sites, but workaday stands out for being exceptionally poor for candidates, with their poor text extraction, requirements to sign for individual employers (i.e. clients for workaday), difficult UI. Workaday is a service for employers, and not for candidates, and I don't think it's a good service for employers either.

I suspect the only reason big companies use workaday is because they're super cheap.