4 ms·
great question. The alternative is not accepting 1000 applicants. Nobody said you have to keep up your job posting for two weeks, or two hours for that matter.
by RugnirViking 4mo ago
great question. The alternative is not accepting 1000 applicants. Nobody said you have to keep up your job posting for two weeks, or two hours for that matter. stop once you have enough. Enough is defined by whatever number you would have filtered to. In the rare case none of the first ten applicants were appropriate, just open it again until youve got another tranche.
- Arodex 4mo agoThat's just another type of randomness (who was online during the short time the posting was opened).
- sevenzero 4mo agoAt least this would not force applicants to fine tune their applications to the latest LLM bullshit bingo.
- RugnirViking 4mo agoright. But if you go online and look for a job, then the ones you are available at that moment will actually read your application
- Xirdus 4mo ago"Being online during the short time" heavily favors bots. In a way, AI screening tools saved us from the future of everybody buying resume-spamming-as-a-service because it became as important to use these as getting a college degree.
- jarito 4mo agoYou are assuming quality applicants are evenly distributed in terms of time of application - they aren’t. If you cut off at 100, you will only get a sample of people spewing fully automated application bots which mostly aren’t what you want.
- MichaelDickens 4mo agoIf that's true, then it suggests an easy fix: leave your application up for four hours, then discard all applications you get for the first two.