3 ms·

If you're going to filter on typos, you may as well put a hackerrank/leetcode question as the initial filter, or invent your own question. That will save you an

If you're going to filter on typos, you may as well put a hackerrank/leetcode question as the initial filter, or invent your own question. That will save you and your team more time since you will only get respondents that pass and you don't need to review every resume yourself for typos.

pklausler 9y ago
I don't know about the original poster, but I'll immediately spot every error in spelling, punctuation, and usage in a ten-second skim of a page. My eyes just go right to them. And yes, I consider that it's difficult to write correct English. But if you're willing to send out an erroneous resume without getting it competently reviewed, I have to suspect the depth of your commitment to quality overall.
- pizza234 9y ago
  > And yes, I consider that it's difficult to write correct English. But if you're willing to send out an erroneous resume without getting it competently reviewed, I have to suspect the depth of your commitment to quality overall. Is this theory or practice? People who individually craft CVs and cover letters (I do) go through a very resource consuming process. Having all the CVs and cover letters externally reviewed makes the process even more resource consuming. It's crucial to differentiate spell-checking from proofreading. The parent specified spell-checking; there is a reason to be strict on this, and it's that spell-checking a document takes less than a minute with a word processor, so one really needs to be careless to leave more than a couple of spelling mistakes. Proofreading on the other hand, is much more demanding (finding people, coordinating, reviewing and applying changes), and often, gives feedback that may not be very useful or even conflictual between reviewers. I don't think proofreading for more than a handful of CVs/CLs is realistic (expect for the CV-maniacs).
  - pklausler 9y ago
    You meant "except".
- oldandtired 9y ago
  It is obvious that you did not scan your comment for any errors for 10 seconds before you submitted it. Try a little game and find the error you have made.
- FLUX-YOU 9y ago
  If someone ever ships a bug, I'd have to suspect their commitment to quality overall too, and that's way more relevant than a typo. I wouldn't want anyone to pay for a resume review because the advice you get from that can be quackery or even conflict with other articles about resume writing (apart from 'no typos', they can pretty much agree on that). Really, the point was if you're going to use a superficial filter like that, you may as well automate it to something like a code test so you can save yourself even something as small as 10 seconds x N resumes per year.

pklausler 9y ago

I don't know about the original poster, but I'll immediately spot every error in spelling, punctuation, and usage in a ten-second skim of a page. My eyes just go right to them. And yes, I consider that it's difficult to write correct English. But if you're willing to send out an erroneous resume without getting it competently reviewed, I have to suspect the depth of your commitment to quality overall.

pizza234 9y ago
> And yes, I consider that it's difficult to write correct English. But if you're willing to send out an erroneous resume without getting it competently reviewed, I have to suspect the depth of your commitment to quality overall. Is this theory or practice? People who individually craft CVs and cover letters (I do) go through a very resource consuming process. Having all the CVs and cover letters externally reviewed makes the process even more resource consuming. It's crucial to differentiate spell-checking from proofreading. The parent specified spell-checking; there is a reason to be strict on this, and it's that spell-checking a document takes less than a minute with a word processor, so one really needs to be careless to leave more than a couple of spelling mistakes. Proofreading on the other hand, is much more demanding (finding people, coordinating, reviewing and applying changes), and often, gives feedback that may not be very useful or even conflictual between reviewers. I don't think proofreading for more than a handful of CVs/CLs is realistic (expect for the CV-maniacs).
- pklausler 9y ago
  You meant "except".
oldandtired 9y ago
It is obvious that you did not scan your comment for any errors for 10 seconds before you submitted it. Try a little game and find the error you have made.
FLUX-YOU 9y ago
If someone ever ships a bug, I'd have to suspect their commitment to quality overall too, and that's way more relevant than a typo. I wouldn't want anyone to pay for a resume review because the advice you get from that can be quackery or even conflict with other articles about resume writing (apart from 'no typos', they can pretty much agree on that). Really, the point was if you're going to use a superficial filter like that, you may as well automate it to something like a code test so you can save yourself even something as small as 10 seconds x N resumes per year.