What isn't available on most job search sites (or within recruiter processes) that would improve your search experience?<p>I've built an app that gathers remote jobs and on-site jobs (mostly software engineering / tech jobs) directly from company websites. Features are built for job seekers (not employers). If interested see my HN profile
I want a secret weapon that my competitors don't have.<p>I was out of the workforce for two years or so trying to develop my own thing and had maxxed out my HELOC and was getting tough love from my wife and son, rolled my car, was really at rock bottom.<p>I built myself an intelligent agent (circa 2018) that is like an applicant tracking system in that it can ingest lots of applications and categorize them together with me, maintain a workflow, etc. Got my first interview with an AI company in a week, my wife was skeptical, but I aced it because boy did I have a good story to tell.<p>That software has been through some rewrites and revisions and now I use it as an RSS reader and as an "image sorter", boy was it fun to be viewing and sorting images in it with three huge windows with my Meta Quest 3 last night.
I want to know what jobs are real and downrank ghost jobs.<p>I gave up running a community job board because the jobs that kept coming up on LinkedIn etc over and over just seemed fake. Eventually I said I’d only share what I knew was real because I knew the team directly.<p>One signal could be actual social shares by hiring managers / team members. This (like anything) could be gamed. So I think other signals would have to be considered. Maybe the employers reputation or information from actual developers.
Well, I think a few possible ways would be to do the following:<p>1. Fix filtering/search systems so they're better at identifying relevant technologies and jobs. The amount of times I've searched for say, 'React Developer' roles and gotten jobs in C++ or .NET or Java is surprisingly high. Not even ones with React in the description, just the most random stuff possible. Same with the 'top applicant' suggestions on LinkedIn, which seem to be tailor made to throw anything at the wall, no matter the lack of relevance.<p>So having those systems actually work (and use things like skills and keywords to find relevant positions) would be a godsend.<p>2. Better moderation against ghost jobs, scams, etc. Places like Indeed and LinkedIn are filled with roles that come up month after month for years, and offers from people that aren't associated with the relevant company in the slightest or who are tricking people into downloading malware. There should be better systems for enforcing good behaviour here, and an attempt at verifying the situation if a job is being relisted for years on end.
The problem with hiring is that there are two sets of stakeholders with different needs. If you cater to the candidates, you miss the needs of the hiring company, and vice versa. Nobody is going to fix hiring by only working on one side of the fence.
+ The fundamental nature of job search sites cannot be changed:<p>1: Job listings generally correlate to jobs that can't be filled through word of mouth. [0]<p>2: Job applicants generally correlate to candidates who cannot find a job through word of mouth.<p>+ Job search works about as well as it can.<p>1. Today it is easy for people to hear about jobs that they simply won't get and would never have heard about in the past for that reason.<p>2. Today for companies there is no direct expense associated with listing a job (just automatically file applications in a database). In the past job listings in publications cost meaningful money.<p>+ No amount of scraping is going to result in significantly better job listings.<p>+ No features are going to result in significantly more hireable candidates.<p>Good luck.<p>[0]: For the sake of simplicity I place non-existent jobs in this category even if one could make a mathematical argument to the contrary.