3 ms·

There is nothing magic about it. It's common sense. You first make it through a basic keyword search, then someone sifts through those results for basic relevan

There is nothing magic about it. It's common sense. You first make it through a basic keyword search, then someone sifts through those results for basic relevancy, then you get an interview. You are the one seeking something here, lost in a pile of other seekers. Why wouldn't you do everything you could to make it easy for the person looking at your CV to pass it on to the next stage of vetting. Why would someone bother googling some obscure reference on your resume when they have dozens or hundreds of others that fit the bill? The key is learning what it takes, in general, to get to the next stage. While there are always horror stories about oddball reasons for not getting selected, they aren't the norm. Understand the job you are going for, understand the expertise and expectations at the different stages, and you'll do fine. It is basically a numbers game at that point.

talmand 12y ago
Basing selection heavily on keywords when the gatekeeper doesn't understand the keywords is a problem. That is the problem I'm referring to. I don't know how else to explain this. I don't disagree with you that using proper keywords is common sense. I'm not complaining about that in any way. But, as it has been pointed out in many places, stuffing your resume with keywords is a bad idea. So, I simply cannot list off every single little thing I know, I have to cull it down somehow. If I didn't find the magic pattern required for the gatekeeper when choosing my keywords then my resume gets passed over. For example, if a developer specializes in AngularJS, among many other things, then they are likely to list that and leaving off Javascript. It's only common sense because AngularJS IS Javascript. Remember, too many keywords is bad. What if that developer happens to specialize in multiple Javascript frameworks? Remember, too many keywords is bad. If the gatekeeper doesn't understand that AngularJS is Javascript, but fails to see the Javascript keyword then they may disregard. That's a simple example but could easily be understood to be possible. Another example, how many times has a recruiter mistaken Java and Javascript as the same thing? To me, that's a problem that potentially keeps good candidates from being matched to jobs they are good matches for. Good candidates that the hiring manager never even knows about.

talmand 12y ago

Basing selection heavily on keywords when the gatekeeper doesn't understand the keywords is a problem. That is the problem I'm referring to. I don't know how else to explain this. I don't disagree with you that using proper keywords is common sense. I'm not complaining about that in any way. But, as it has been pointed out in many places, stuffing your resume with keywords is a bad idea. So, I simply cannot list off every single little thing I know, I have to cull it down somehow. If I didn't find the magic pattern required for the gatekeeper when choosing my keywords then my resume gets passed over. For example, if a developer specializes in AngularJS, among many other things, then they are likely to list that and leaving off Javascript. It's only common sense because AngularJS IS Javascript. Remember, too many keywords is bad. What if that developer happens to specialize in multiple Javascript frameworks? Remember, too many keywords is bad. If the gatekeeper doesn't understand that AngularJS is Javascript, but fails to see the Javascript keyword then they may disregard. That's a simple example but could easily be understood to be possible. Another example, how many times has a recruiter mistaken Java and Javascript as the same thing? To me, that's a problem that potentially keeps good candidates from being matched to jobs they are good matches for. Good candidates that the hiring manager never even knows about.