I literally thought the question was about passing out weed, like at a dispensary or party

Skills from one technology can transferred to another technology so maybe you’re just being myopic

The expectations that hirers have for candidates is so absurd that candidates have no choice. Just hire somebody with correlative experience who is competent, shows up, and you like, and teach them how to use if they don't know how. It's probably not that hard. I knew when the millennials got to the age of being the hirers it was going to be shi** show, but I did not predict just how bad.

OP did you post the exact salary in the job description as well so they can weed you out and not waste their time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably took, what, a couple hours to filter from 100 to 2 candidates? Not seeing what the big deal here is. Sure, people should be honest, but some of the job descriptions can sound very aspirational so I can understand why candidates might just want to make sure they're not weeded out prematurely in case some of the requirements weren't intended to be strictly enforced.

The title of the Job has it as a senior level of that type of technology and so does the first bullet of years of experience? I honestly feel like it immediately disqualifies them for not paying attention or lying.

So disqualify them and move on. Why are you whining here?

Because she allllllso wants to blacklist them and punish them for wasting her time. And get everyone to be indignant with her.

OP, by any chance were you using Indeed? We had a similar situation (asked for a 4 year college degree, got over 100 applicants with HS diploma or AA degree), and another 170+ who didn't meet the other requirements (5-7 years experience - this was not an entry level position).

I swore we'd never use Indeed again. While previous posters seem to think your taking hours to go through applicants is OK, at a small business (we have under 10 EEs), it's not OK and a huge waste if my time.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but nobody believes job advertisements are even real. Half the time they openings don't exist and the ad is just a way to submit your resume for a different, unposted job. The other half of the time, the company has asked for the moon but will settle for a reasonably tall tree.

I realize OP didn't personally create this problem but employers as a group did create it for themselves. Job hunters are just doing their best in a nasty market.

LOL, the above is so true. I once competed against a friend for a job with my employer where the job description was an impossible combination of characteristics. She had about 6 of 10 requirements and I had maybe 4 of 10. I made the final round of interviews. I have never met anybody that had 8/10, let alone 10/10 of those requirements. It was a combo client-side and ad agency job.

Sorry, but nobody believes job advertisements are even real. Half the time they openings don't exist and the ad is just a way to submit your resume for a different, unposted job. The other half of the time, the company has asked for the moon but will settle for a reasonably tall tree.

I realize OP didn't personally create this problem but employers as a group did create it for themselves. Job hunters are just doing their best in a nasty market.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably took, what, a couple hours to filter from 100 to 2 candidates? Not seeing what the big deal here is. Sure, people should be honest, but some of the job descriptions can sound very aspirational so I can understand why candidates might just want to make sure they're not weeded out prematurely in case some of the requirements weren't intended to be strictly enforced.

The title of the Job has it as a senior level of that type of technology and so does the first bullet of years of experience? I honestly feel like it immediately disqualifies them for not paying attention or lying.

So disqualify them and move on. Why are you whining here?

Anonymous wrote:It probably took, what, a couple hours to filter from 100 to 2 candidates? Not seeing what the big deal here is. Sure, people should be honest, but some of the job descriptions can sound very aspirational so I can understand why candidates might just want to make sure they're not weeded out prematurely in case some of the requirements weren't intended to be strictly enforced.

+1

God forbid OP has to spend a few minutes actually reading a resume a candidate likely spent at least an hour on. I’ll bet doesn’t spare a thought for the wasted time of the dozens of applicants she has her AI “weed out” for nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:It probably took, what, a couple hours to filter from 100 to 2 candidates? Not seeing what the big deal here is. Sure, people should be honest, but some of the job descriptions can sound very aspirational so I can understand why candidates might just want to make sure they're not weeded out prematurely in case some of the requirements weren't intended to be strictly enforced.

The title of the Job has it as a senior level of that type of technology and so does the first bullet of years of experience? I honestly feel like it immediately disqualifies them for not paying attention or lying.

It probably took, what, a couple hours to filter from 100 to 2 candidates? Not seeing what the big deal here is. Sure, people should be honest, but some of the job descriptions can sound very aspirational so I can understand why candidates might just want to make sure they're not weeded out prematurely in case some of the requirements weren't intended to be strictly enforced.

No, why would a company invest in their employees?

Do you offer NO training?

As a hiring manager, I’m honestly fed up with candidates lying about their experience just to bypass weed-out questions. I recently posted a job asking for 5-7 years of experience with a specific technology, and in the last 3 days, I’ve received over 100 submissions. About 80% of those are properly weeded out and sent to the rejection pile because they don’t meet the job requirements, but at least 20% get through. However, of those, only about 2 actually have experience with the technology. What the heck?

Some candidates are claiming they have 20 years of experience — which is absurd, considering the technology has only been around for 10 years. When I check their resumes, it’s clear they’re inflating their experience. Do they think no one will notice? I work for a large, well-known tech company, and it’s pretty obvious when someone’s lying.

At this point, I feel like I should flag these candidates and put them on a do-not-hire list internally. It’s a complete waste of time for everyone, and it’s setting people up for failure. Imagine getting hired and realizing you have no real experience with the tech you claimed to know. It’s just unethical and wrong.