Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Resume Matcher – An open source, free tool to improve your resume

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 61 posts

Re: Resume Matcher – An open source, free tool to improve your resume

#11

Post by bheadmaster »

willsmith72 wrote: post #9
ssharp wrote: post #4

I'm generally confused by how much "ATS-friendly" matters, or what that even means. On one side of the coin, it logically makes sense that ATS systems would help recruiters pare down the list. I'd assume there is some auto-rejection happening, but how sensitive is it (getting rid of clearly unqualified candidates vs. rejecting marginal candidates vs. actually qualified but still rejected due to not being ATS-friendly…

ATS optimisation is absolutely critical these days, at least in tech. With the amount of applications you receive, the easiest first step is looking for a way to exclude someone. If your ATS can't even parse someone's CV properly, that's a great way to exclude it from consideration. The next level is keyword matching. If your ATS can't find any of the keywords from your listing in the CV, another easy exclusion. The…

> If your ATS can't even parse someone's CV properly, that's a great way to exclude it from consideration.

Why?

Is there some official CV format that applicants are expected to follow, which is guaranteed to be parsable by ATS, so that un-ATS-parsable CV shows incapability of following rules?

Re: Resume Matcher – An open source, free tool to improve your resume

#12

Post by bingemaker »

willsmith72 wrote: post #9
ssharp wrote: post #4

I'm generally confused by how much "ATS-friendly" matters, or what that even means. On one side of the coin, it logically makes sense that ATS systems would help recruiters pare down the list. I'd assume there is some auto-rejection happening, but how sensitive is it (getting rid of clearly unqualified candidates vs. rejecting marginal candidates vs. actually qualified but still rejected due to not being ATS-friendly…

ATS optimisation is absolutely critical these days, at least in tech. With the amount of applications you receive, the easiest first step is looking for a way to exclude someone. If your ATS can't even parse someone's CV properly, that's a great way to exclude it from consideration. The next level is keyword matching. If your ATS can't find any of the keywords from your listing in the CV, another easy exclusion. The…

The way ATS is growing, I no more know what a resume should contain. Are there any ATS standards?

Re: Resume Matcher – An open source, free tool to improve your resume

#13

Post by sonicanatidae »

ssharp wrote: post #4

I'm generally confused by how much "ATS-friendly" matters, or what that even means. On one side of the coin, it logically makes sense that ATS systems would help recruiters pare down the list. I'd assume there is some auto-rejection happening, but how sensitive is it (getting rid of clearly unqualified candidates vs. rejecting marginal candidates vs. actually qualified but still rejected due to not being ATS-friendly…

The automation causes them to miss a number of qualified candidates, but at least one gets through and thisisfine.jpg. These aren't regex strings. They key on keywords and make the stupid mistakes common with keyword filters.

Also, they make the hiring process worse. Know the right keywords to put into a resume and you can be a grand mal idiot, and you'll still get interview time.

I get the other side of it. No HR is staffed to cull through 1000s of resumes, but the systems meant to aid them, are poorly developed and tossed out the door in the name of PROFITS.

Note: Profits aren't a bad thing. PROFITS are, because they ignore everything else for the sake of PROFITS, hence the caps.

A simple example.

How many times would anyone here enjoy uploading a resume, then immediately after, having to either type in the entire fucking thing, or spend 20 mins "correcting" the horrific parsing. If more dev time had been spent the process would be much better for the prospective employee, but they didn't. Companies built half-assed parsing, called it done, and moved on.

Developing these systems into more than just the horse shit out there now would go a long way towards solving both issues.

Source: I've been Senior Technical/Hiring manager for most of my career.

Re: Resume Matcher – An open source, free tool to improve your resume

#18

Post by slg »

This is not a criticism of this software or the author as they have no personal responsibility for the larger system they operate in, but sometimes I see something like this, and I just think we live in a dystopia. Have we gotten to the point that jobseekers and employers are using adversarial AIs against each other in some attempt at optimization? What are we doing here? We seem to be on the path to this stuff oozing its way into every aspect of society only to make things worse.

Re: Resume Matcher – An open source, free tool to improve your resume

#20

Post by chefandy »

bheadmaster wrote: post #11
willsmith72 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ATS optimisation is absolutely critical these days, at least in tech. With the amount of applications you receive, the easiest first step is looking for a way to exclude someone. If your ATS can't even parse someone's CV properly, that's a great way to exclude it from consideration. The next level is keyword matching. If your ATS can't find any of the keywords from your listing in the CV, another easy exclusion. The…

> If your ATS can't even parse someone's CV properly, that's a great way to exclude it from consideration. Why? Is there some official CV format that applicants are expected to follow, which is guaranteed to be parsable by ATS, so that un-ATS-parsable CV shows incapability of following rules?

> The whole system is completely bs, for both sides, to the point that personal referrals become more and more important. But if you don't play the game, someone else will, and you lose out.

Seems to me that "great way to" in this case is sarcastic. It's a "great" way for HR people to solve the problem because it requires zero effort even if its stymies both applicants, and their own efforts to uncover worthy candidates.

In the end, as is the case with so much of our modern world, the root of the problem is some company overselling the capability of their AI-driven product and some executive with no accurate way to gauge the drawbacks saying "wow we can spend $x thousand per year for this service that will save us 3($x) thousand in recruiting payroll. I'm in." In the ATS world, resumes require SEO to be useful for most companies... that is, unless you're giving it to a human being that asked you for it because you already have a rapport with them.

Post reply on HN