A winning resume is one that gets the author into a position they are perfectly suited for, but also into an environment that perfectly suits them. And none of

A winning resume is one that gets the author into a position they are perfectly suited for, but also into an environment that perfectly suits them. And none of those are constant. As much as people try to make resume writing science, it's anything but. It's funny how the author focuses on how formatting and style are unimportant, but then makes a case how rewording stuff is the winning combination. None of it is substance, and there are people who'd be fooled by either, and those who'd be fooled by neither. I'd much rather interview someone who says how "they were part of the team responsible for developing rocket engine control software" than someone who claims to have "personally created an URL shortener service that's raking in 100k a month of ad revenue". Even if that rocket engine never flew. Perhaps the resume writer is someone who knows real stuff in brilliant teams has everyone contributing bits of brilliant ideas, and/or they are modest about their part? Or their part is brilliant in the context of the team and project, but hard to put into a sentence or two. And sometimes, accomplishments to list are far too many. But the key takeaway is that, like with marketing, you can use tricks to fool most people, but you are targeting your resume at different people, and each one of them might like a different thing. And they might see how you won't like their opening either, if you make the CV represent the real you (or at least not represent a fake you because CV cam hardly represent anyone).