4hEn

What if candidates paid you to? Would you want to?

This can filter out candidates that aren't really interested, and companies that aren't really hiring.

The cost to an employer to accept (not review) 100 applications is about 1/100th of the cost to the candidate.

Employers have more information about the applicants individually and in aggregate but candidates don't about the companies.

Employers don't give much basic feedback to candidates, like underqualified, overqualified, not sure, something else.

  Location: NYC
  Remote: yes
  Willing to relocate: no
  Technologies: Python-like or C-like. Databases. No C++/C#. 
  Contact: https://fairthejob.com/profile?public_token=per_lqpFOoDhdhUqJsaVeDSMoGfVNKLaAECu

Python-like or C-like. Databases. No C++/C#/Java.

Automation

Profile https://fairthejob.com/profile?public_token=per_lqpFOoDhdhUq...

> Consistently identifying whether an individual has the right to work in a country from the semi-structured data in a resume is a surprisingly hard problem for software to solve

Many job posts provide a field that requires the candidate to enter if they have the right to work in the country the position is located.

If it did it could be - if it could show how many applicants are actually qualified. Then a job board that listed more prominently jobs from responsive employers could get attention.

I'm not sure it's "jumping through hoops". In a well functioning company, providing evidence for a hiring decision is something that must happen anyway. How can the recruiter justify why they said yay or nay to a candidate? They might not remember the details but they're probably scoring candidates in broad categories. These categories tell you "90% don't have the right to work in the country never mind meet the job spec in other requirements".

If this data is available and isn't communicated to candidates there could be some other reason, likely that job boards make most of their money only from companies.

It's one force, not "the" force. As described in the other comment, having enough data about which employers are actually hiring could go a long way.

Why? Do you believe it would accumulate spam and negativity because it's inexpensive for anyone to submit a review? What if there was a cost attached to posting a review?

Reviews might be unnecessary if candidates can collectively gather up the data that shows if a company is actually hiring, and actually reviewing resumes, and actually responding to candidates with above-generic feedback.

The reason this data isn't collected and presented is that job sites and application tracking software make their money from companies. There isn't a site that makes money from candidates to counteract this force. The power imbalance between candidate and employer is tilted in favor of the employer.

If a job post showed there are 286 applicants for a job would you bother writing a cover letter? I wouldn't. I would move on to the job posting that responds promptly and has fewer candidates.

If a job post showed there are 100 applicants, the job posting has been open for 30 days, and there are zero resume reviews, would you bother applying to this job and others like it in this company? I wouldn't. It means the employer isn't really hiring or is disfunctional enough to announce a position without giving it attention.

I'd even be willing to pay the recruiter for their time giving me somewhat helpful not legally binding feedback like we think "you're overqualified", "you're missing an important skill", "we're not sure yet". If the recruiter starts generating revenue for the company, the company might hire more of them.

I'd also be willing to recommend my friends to good companies.

One way is to play ball with the candidates. A big casualty of the job search is the candidate because they deplete their savings while looking for a job. Companies on the other hand can afford to not spend the money on a hire, or delay hiring, or put job postings that aren't really hiring to keep up pretenses or as marketing or feel they're not losing anything. The candidate doesn't have a concentrated force to counteract this.

If candidates wised up it could get interesting. A web app that is the other half of LinkedIn could be there waiting to be discovered.

Job sites could do a better job showing when the job is no longer available.

This search query https://hn-recommend.julienc.me/?q=paul%20graham returns articles that are missing both words of the query