> Because this is what I look for, I keep my resume in the same pattern. That's pretty much what I do. I essentially have two versions of my resume: Part 1 i

> Because this is what I look for, I keep my resume in the same pattern. That's pretty much what I do. I essentially have two versions of my resume: Part 1 is a single page, outlines the basics, plus the last 2 or 3 places I've worked at, etc. Just a summary format, but with enough detail for the reader to understand who I am, what I know, and what I can offer them as an employee. The next 2-3 pages are more detailed overviews of those places I've worked in the past that I listed on the summary, plus maybe a couple more. I tell my recruiter (I work with a couple of independent recruiters from agencies) to pass along either the single page or all pages to the prospective employer, depending on what they think or know that the employer likes to read. If they are like you, they get the full thing; if not they'll get the summary. When I go to the interview, I take a copy of my full resume, but I ask my recruiter which version they passed along first. That way I know what kind of person I'm probably dealing with in the interview. Regardless, I always make an offer of the "long form" resume, if they'd like a copy (and I take multiple copies in case I need to hand them out to others who may not have a copy). I've never had a problem with this system. Even so, I read articles like this, and comments like the ones here on HN, and take them in stride, as I feel that my resume is a living document that can always use improvement and updating (especially as my skills expand).