New top story on Hacker News: Tell HN: "Upload your resume and then type it out” is hurting your company
Tell HN: "Upload your resume and then type it out” is hurting your company
46 by valar_m | 19 comments on Hacker News.
I understand why it exists - text is easier to query than reading a resume, but it's a terrible and outdated design pattern that needs to go. But good news: there are better ways! Some possible solutions and suggestions: -Use a list of checkbox options for candidates to click skills/requirements that you want for the role. If you need SQL, JS, Python, and you believe a CS degree is necessary, then let candidates click which ones they have. No more messing with text! Bonus: You could add some kind of percentage of skills match metric when reviewing applicants (you should still review resumes, however). Bonus #2: You can autofill the job posting with a list of desired skills instead of needing to type them out - just select which ones you need when creating the posting. -You don't need user-entered text fields for keyword matching. Extracting text from PDFs and Word Docs is trivial. If your text extract fails or misses a min word count threshold, just trigger a secondary step for HR to review and manually copy the text and enter it. Point is, stop making users manually enter the text when applying, just pull it out yourself. -If you insist on candidates typing out their resume, stop trying to extract text from resumes to autofill the application form. Personally, I'd prefer to just type it out rather than review it and fix all of the inevitable mistakes (or more likely, clear the fields and just enter it myself). I have considerable experience hiring engineers, and I can tell you concretely that: 1. Strong candidates are hard to find. 2. A single bad hire can sink a team. 3. Technical interviewing is hard and far from solved. Given these three things, why make it harder than it has to be by using a badly designed system when a few changes to the logistical process can fix so much? And if the bosses balk, maybe sell it like this: the existence of your company depends on good hiring, so maybe assign an engineer or two to spend a few months building this out. Not to be all "Dropbox is easy build" - but the basic functionality for something like this is not terribly more complex than a CRUD app with file uploading. I know that's oversimplifying, but I bet you get my point.
46 by valar_m | 19 comments on Hacker News.
I understand why it exists - text is easier to query than reading a resume, but it's a terrible and outdated design pattern that needs to go. But good news: there are better ways! Some possible solutions and suggestions: -Use a list of checkbox options for candidates to click skills/requirements that you want for the role. If you need SQL, JS, Python, and you believe a CS degree is necessary, then let candidates click which ones they have. No more messing with text! Bonus: You could add some kind of percentage of skills match metric when reviewing applicants (you should still review resumes, however). Bonus #2: You can autofill the job posting with a list of desired skills instead of needing to type them out - just select which ones you need when creating the posting. -You don't need user-entered text fields for keyword matching. Extracting text from PDFs and Word Docs is trivial. If your text extract fails or misses a min word count threshold, just trigger a secondary step for HR to review and manually copy the text and enter it. Point is, stop making users manually enter the text when applying, just pull it out yourself. -If you insist on candidates typing out their resume, stop trying to extract text from resumes to autofill the application form. Personally, I'd prefer to just type it out rather than review it and fix all of the inevitable mistakes (or more likely, clear the fields and just enter it myself). I have considerable experience hiring engineers, and I can tell you concretely that: 1. Strong candidates are hard to find. 2. A single bad hire can sink a team. 3. Technical interviewing is hard and far from solved. Given these three things, why make it harder than it has to be by using a badly designed system when a few changes to the logistical process can fix so much? And if the bosses balk, maybe sell it like this: the existence of your company depends on good hiring, so maybe assign an engineer or two to spend a few months building this out. Not to be all "Dropbox is easy build" - but the basic functionality for something like this is not terribly more complex than a CRUD app with file uploading. I know that's oversimplifying, but I bet you get my point.
Comments
Post a Comment