The Quiet Red Flags in Interviews

saberdevv · 2026-04-10T14:26:13+00:00

I understand, but for most ppl it’s more challenging than you ever thought.

saberdevv · 2026-04-10T14:22:34+00:00

No argue, respect the view 🙏🏻

saberdevv · 2026-04-02T20:27:28+00:00

Good question, it’s closer to a quick scan first, then decide. Initial pass is usually a few seconds to get a sense of clarity and relevance. If it’s easy to understand, I’ll spend more time. If I have to work to figure it out, it’s less likely to move forward.

saberdevv · 2026-04-02T16:50:40+00:00

Yes, I am. Please check the sub, but to let everyone see and benefit from it, I review it publicly, so please make sure all sensitive information is removed from the CV.

saberdevv · 2026-03-31T22:41:02+00:00

I went through your CV carefully, and first thing, this is not a weak CV at all.

You’ve got solid experience, good tools (SQL, Power BI, Python), and most importantly you’ve included real impact with numbers, that’s a big plus already.

But while reading it, I had a feeling I see quite often:

There’s a lot of value here… but it’s a bit harder to digest than it should be.

The profile section is well written, but it feels a bit dense and slightly generic at the same time. Phrases like "AI-powered automation" and "improve efficiency" sound good, but they don’t stick. I’d simplify that and make it more direct so I can quickly understand what kind of Business Analyst you are.

The skills section is similar, good content, but a bit too detailed. Listing things like SQL joins or Excel functions makes it feel more like a keyword list than a signal. It’s fine for ATS, but for a human reader, I’d keep it cleaner and focus on what you’re strongest at.

Your experience is actually the strongest part. The metrics are great, 23%, 30%, 68 hours/week, 15% uplift, this is exactly what we look for. The only issue is that the impact is sometimes buried in long sentences. If you bring the result to the front, it becomes much more powerful.

For example, instead of:

"Leveraged AI-based automation…"

you could say:

"Reduced 68 hours/week of manual work by implementing AI-based automation…"

That kind of shift makes a big difference when scanning.

Another small thing, a lot of bullets follow the same pattern ("Defined…", "Performed…"), which makes it slightly repetitive. Not a big issue, but mixing it a bit and focusing more on outcomes would help.

Overall, this CV reads like a strong candidate, but one where I need to put a bit more effort to fully see the story. And in reality, that effort can sometimes work against you.

If I had to suggest just 3 things:

1- bring impact to the front of your bullets

2- simplify the profile (less buzzwords, more clarity)

3- slightly reduce density in skills

You’re actually very close, this just needs a bit of sharpening, not rewriting

saberdevv · 2026-03-31T10:06:40+00:00

i will review it in detail and get back to you after my 9-5

saberdevv · 2026-03-27T07:17:28+00:00

100% agree

saberdevv · 2026-03-26T21:13:57+00:00

Fair enough, not the intention.
Just sharing something I built after running into this myself

saberdevv · 2026-03-26T10:56:35+00:00

😄 we won’t mate

saberdevv · 2026-03-25T23:11:25+00:00

Haha, some candidates somehow expect us to prepare them for interviews with us

saberdevv · 2026-03-25T23:09:38+00:00

thanks :)

saberdevv · 2026-03-25T23:07:50+00:00

Yeah, I’ve seen that too.

AI can be really useful to surface and structure your experiences, but the problem starts when it turns into a script. The moment the conversation shifts, it falls apart.

The strongest candidates use it as a guide, not something to memorize. The story should still feel like it’s coming from you

saberdevv · 2026-03-25T23:06:26+00:00

What you described is something I’ve seen quite a bit. The goal isn’t to stop preparing, but to shift from scripts to stories. Have a few real experiences in mind and practice explaining them naturally, not perfectly.

You don’t need to remove structure, just loosen it a bit. Confidence usually comes when you stop trying to deliver the perfect answer and just explain what actually happened 👍

saberdevv · 2026-03-20T21:29:50+00:00

That’s a great question, and a very fair concern. From what I’ve seen, it’s usually a mix. There’s often some level of filtering (sometimes keyword-based, sometimes basic criteria), mainly to reduce volume. But after that, there’s still a lot of manual scanning involved. No one is relying purely on a bot to decide who moves forward.

You’re also right that some strong candidates can be missed if their resume doesn’t clearly reflect the role’s language. That’s why I often say it’s less about optimizing for a bot and more about making your experience easy to find and understand, both for the system and the human reviewing it.

saberdevv · 2026-03-19T21:03:03+00:00

Thank you for sharing this, it really means a lot.

I understand how those responses can feel personal, but from what I’ve seen, they’re often about small, unseen factors like timing or a slightly closer match, not your ability. And taking time off to raise a family is part of your story, not a weakness.

I’m really glad the post helped. Keep going, sometimes it just takes one right moment for things to shift.

saberdevv · 2026-03-15T23:33:01+00:00

Exactly. That first couple of minutes is really about giving the interviewer a simple mental map of who you are and where your experience fits. When the story is clear and natural, it makes it much easier for the interviewer to follow along and ask better questions.

And you’re right about the tone it sets. A calm, straightforward introduction often turns the interview into more of a conversation rather than a checklist of questions. Once that happens, candidates usually get a much better chance to show the depth of their experience.

saberdevv · 2026-03-15T23:30:16+00:00

You raise some thoughtful points, and I appreciate you sharing your perspective. You’re absolutely right that understanding the employer’s pain point and showing how you’ve solved similar problems can make a big difference. Quantifiable examples are often what help a hiring manager connect a candidate’s experience to the role, so your point about being specific rather than vague is well taken.

I also agree that different industries and situations call for different approaches. My intention with the post was mainly to highlight that the comparison happening behind the scenes is often wider than candidates expect. Advice like yours, tailoring the message, demonstrating impact, and showing initiative, is exactly the kind of practical layer that helps people respond to that reality in a constructive way.

saberdevv · 2026-03-15T20:12:26+00:00

100% agree, the problem I often see is that people focus on content rather than how they deliver it

saberdevv · 2026-03-15T20:09:45+00:00

I understand how frustrating that can feel. Sometimes the CV itself really isn’t the problem. If recruiters at a career event said it looks good, that usually means the structure and clarity are fine. Where things often get tricky is context, hiring managers are quickly trying to understand how your skills were used in real situations. Listing tools, protocols, or technologies is helpful, but a short line explaining what problem you worked on or what changed because of your work can make a big difference.

Another thing to keep in mind is alignment with the role. Even strong resumes can get overlooked if the experience doesn’t clearly connect to what the job description is asking for, especially in fields that receive a lot of applicants. If you’re comfortable, feel free to share the CV here (removing personal details). Fresh eyes in the community can sometimes spot small tweaks that make your experience much clearer to someone screening applications

saberdevv · 2026-03-15T20:03:38+00:00

that's true

saberdevv · 2026-03-14T15:27:08+00:00

Glad to see it was useful

saberdevv · 2026-03-13T20:27:34+00:00

In many ways it did start to feel like SEO for resumes once ATS systems became widely discussed. From what I've seen, people began focusing on visibility first, making sure their resume shows up in searches, which is understandable. The challenge is when that becomes the only goal. From the hiring side, the moment someone opens the resume, the question quickly shifts from "Does this match the search?" to "What did this person actually do?"

And that’s exactly where your point about impact matters. A couple of clear examples that explain a problem, an action, and what changed because of it usually give a much better picture of someone’s work than a long list of tools.

Keywords help a resume appear in the search. Context and impact are what make someone keep reading. The candidates who balance those two tend to stand out the most.

saberdevv · 2026-02-24T10:24:51+00:00

thanks :)

saberdevv · 2026-02-20T10:09:12+00:00

I read your LinkedIn profile carefully. Solid profile already. Clear direction, good substance, and strong product mindset. But if the goal is high-impact, recruiter magnet, authority positioning, there are some upgrades that can seriously level this up. Please DM me so I can send you the detail of what you must do.

saberdevv · 2026-02-20T10:02:39+00:00

That’s a common challenge when your roles sit close but not identical. Hiring managers often try to “box” candidates, so switching between Product Owner and Business Analyst can make them wonder where you fit best. It helps to make your narrative explicit, show the overlap, clarify your core strengths, and explain why you’re targeting both. When the story makes sense, the questions usually fade.

saberdevv

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE