[puszczyk]

What would you suggest instead to select 20 good candidates out of 700?

[LaffertyDev]

Well gosh, what a good problem to have. So many good options that still respect people's times. You get to write a process that selects for the things you want to select for!

Let's assume these are 700 _qualified_ applicants and its for a programming role. I.e. their resumes and applications have passed the most basic of filters of "claims they can do a similar job" and "is probably a real person".

How about... * Filter candidates if they have typos in their resumes

* Filter candidates who don't explicitly state that they leverage your tech stack

* Filter candidates who excessively job hop

* Filter candidates who have below some minimum of professional experience

* Filter candidates who live far from the workplace

* Filter candidates, for a remote role, who live in HCOL area

* Filter candidates who put objective statements in their resume

* Filter candidates who don't put objective statements in their resume

* Filter candidates who don't have a link to some online portfolio (Github, personal blog, etc.)

* Filter candidates who don't contribute to open source

* Roll a dice

The imagination is the limit!

[IshKebab]

This sounds way way way worse than a simple test. I think the critical thing is that your online test shouldn't be difficult.

A simple fizz-buzz level test will narrow 700 candidates down to like 100, no need for arbitrary nonsense like linking to github profiles, contributing to open source or typos.

[thomastjeffery]

On top of this, it's important to consider whether your set of filters is more useful (and moral) than just randomly selecting a subset of candidates.

[robertlagrant]

> The imagination is the limit!

True, but those are pretty bad filters. Why is all that detailed work (x 700) better than getting people to do a test?

[BoiledCabbage]

> * Filter candidates who put objective statements in their resume > * Filter candidates who don't put objective statements in their resume > * Filter candidates who don't have a link to some online portfolio (Github, personal blog, etc.) > * Filter candidates who don't contribute to open source

I can't tell if this post is supposed to be sarcastic or not. I'm assuming so? Because these criteria are horrible compared to what's currently done now. "* Filter candidates who put objective statements in their resume". What in the world is that?

If it is just sarcastic then why even post it? Why not post an actual proposal for a better way to interview?

[esaym]

Simply skimming their resume would probably weed out 50% of that. A better way is to have a few simple questions on the application, like "Where do you see your career in 5 years", "We use Django here, what are some things you don't like about it", etc. With that, just "skimming" will weed out 90-95%. That said, now that everyone will just pipe that to chatGPT, not so sure how any private interview questions or projects are going to work out.........

[neilv]

1. Don't alienate the good candidates with obnoxiousness.

2. (this step is harder)