Well the opinion you form of a candidate is based on a combination of multiple things. Also, in my experience, the candidates whose resumes contain questionabl

Well the opinion you form of a candidate is based on a combination of multiple things. Also, in my experience, the candidates whose resumes contain questionable/silly things rarely turn out to be great; there is a negative correlation between questionable/silly stuff in the resume and quality. None of the top tier people I've interviewed (the kind where you start thinking "this guy should be interviewing me" during the interview, let's say I've had 5-10 of those) had anything questionable or silly in their resume, and for all of them I was sure the person was going to easily pass the interview based on just reading their resume. This correlation is in fact quite strong in my experience - I can't remember exactly, but I feel like the best candidates I've had who've had anything questionable in their resume were mediocre at best. Note: just simply having a low-effort resume doesn't count as "questionable" here, I've had low effort resumes where the applicants turned out to be pretty great. Of course, that doesn't mean you should write a low-effort resume - it reduces your chances of getting an interview in the first place. People should just write honest, informative resumes. It's not really that hard to do as long as you're not thinking about how to manipulate the person reading the resume.