I've heard reports that recruiters might spend all of 15 to 30 seconds per resume during a screening exercise. Never mind not having technical expertise to ask

I've heard reports that recruiters might spend all of 15 to 30 seconds per resume during a screening exercise. Never mind not having technical expertise to ask technical probing questions, sifting through the top of the funnel is more of an exercise in coping w/ high volumes of resumes than it is about validating depth of expertise at the bottom of the interview funnel. IMHO, complaining about the status quo is easy and giving armchair hot takes about circumstances one does not understand is also easy. If one wants to play the smart game, there are some facts that can leverage to one's advantages: 1) job postings being above the fold vs long tail is a thing. There are tons of companies/roles you will never hear about from by perusing linkedin search. 2) following from that, interview criteria often needs to be adjusted based on various factors and plenty of companies have to make more streamlined funnels in order to have a fighting change of capturing any talent at all. 3) even for high visibility/demand companies, recruiters have incentives to think outside the box to find truly valuable talent, because these people are not even in the market for a new job, let alone willing to put up w/ bullshit. The catch that many people miss is that just accruing a high number of years of experience doesn't necessarily translate to being valuable, especially on the fast changing world of tech.