I'm not very surprised that resumes aren't a good indicator of performance. They're real only useful as an indicator of experience. In other words they tell you

I'm not very surprised that resumes aren't a good indicator of performance. They're real only useful as an indicator of experience. In other words they tell you about quantity and not quality. I'd say if they seem reasonable for the role then move them on to the next step of the hiring process. Every interview process that I've been involved with has had a series of increasing expensive steps designed to find specific information and weed people out as early as possible. It's also worth noting that several of the criteria people used to reject candidates in the article aren't good predictors. For example, lack of pedigree doesn't tell you much. People from a variety of backgrounds can be good or bad as coders. A good or bad pedigree can be a useful indicator.