Unless I missed something, no. You can't go too far (on HN, Reddit, etc.) without seeing some recruiter shaming and explanations of what not to do, but how ofte

Unless I missed something, no. You can't go too far (on HN, Reddit, etc.) without seeing some recruiter shaming and explanations of what not to do, but how often do you see a post that says "I just received the most interesting introduction from a helpful and highly knowledgeable recruiter, and here it is"? What you linked isn't so different from OP's post. We highlight the bad, but have you shown recruiters what they should be doing instead? The only thing I see in your piece that is potentially constructive is "treat me like a human being" with local jobs and applicable technologies. If we're not complaining about relevant tech and geography, it's the list of too many skills (or not enough). Or it's not enough information on the company (OP's link is way more info than most recruiters would give, and the more common complaint is lack of info). So we can agree that location and tech need to be relevant. Does that make for a good intro? "You look like a good fit for $COMPANY, now hiring $LANGUAGE developers for positions in $CITY. Let's discuss." Is that going to catch your eye?