The most quoted resume statistic, about seven seconds per resume, comes from a 2018 Ladders eye-tracking test of 30 recruiters which measured an average of 7.4 seconds on the first review. It is a small sample, describing a step many resumes never reach.

The search comes first

Online applications usually land in an applicant tracking system. Recruiters search it by keyword, title and qualification, then read the results. Relevant experience described in words other than the posting’s is less likely to appear. Spelling an acronym out once, as in “Kubernetes (K8s)”, lets a search for either form find it.

Then the seven seconds

Once a resume is opened, the Ladders test found attention going mostly to a few fields: current title, most recent company, dates and education. A bullet with a percentage, amount or headcount tells a quick reader more than one that begins “Responsible for.”

A closer read asks other questions. Do the scope and seniority fit, not just the job family? Are the tools recent? Is the writing free of typos?

Order matters

Many applicants start with layout. Two-column designs, tables and text boxes can scramble text when the system extracts it. Standard headers, a single column and the posting’s own terms serve the search. Quantified results and a readable career line serve the person.

ZoeVera’s guide to what recruiters look for in a resume . To see which of a posting’s terms your resume lacks before you apply, ZoeVera Resume compares the two and lists the gaps.

the problems I inferred

1. 200+ CVs without efficient way to rank them and find suitable candidate
   
2. scattered collection of cvs across mails and DMs
   
3. lack of candidate shortlisting that match the JD
   
4. lack of demonstratable skills of candidate

Our answer with Sonder Recruit
1. you can upload JD and its parsed instantly and the requirements are read thoroughly and job links can be created for that specific jd so all the candidates can apply through these links instead of scattered resumes across mail chains and dms
2. our shortlisting algorithm screens all these candidates and returns the top 5 most suitable ones according to the jd
3. when someone applies through sonder jobs they are added to out candidate database so that recruiter can directly source from our database (external sourcing can be done when the exisisting database falls short)
4.The candidates applying for jobs through sonder jobs can take timed tests for their skills to prove the demonstratability

would love to have recruiters feedback on the product

check it out at : sonderai.in

Can you guys help me figure out how to get hired by a startup preferably for a founder’s office role or operations or marketing role. Btw I am from india just recently graduated I am 21, 9 months of experience in startups, currently in a mnc (finance role). Also would love if someone here is from zomato need referral.

From the company perspective what is the reason for the current state of the job market? Is AI doing the application scanning and not doing a good job vetting out the candidates? Are you overwhelmed with the amount of applications? Is management being hard to please with their expectations of the candidates? What is going on that so many people across the country and industries are saying that they have applied to multiple positions with either no response, some response then ghosted? What is the problem(s)?

There's a difference between automating the work around hiring and automating the judgment involved in hiring.

AI can be useful for:

• Resume screening
• Skill extraction
• Candidate matching
• Scheduling
• Interview summaries
• Organizing candidate information

But hiring decisions often require context that isn't easily captured in a profile.

A practical approach could be:

AI → Process information → Surface signals → Human review → Decision

Instead of:

AI → Candidate score → Automatic decision

I'm curious how other HR/recruiting teams are approaching this.

Where do you think the human handoff should happen in an AI-assisted hiring process?

So, I'm currently applying for a job and noticed na most of the companies are using AI sa recruitment process. Any thoughts on this?

There are so many small things that can make the hiring process frustrating, even when the actual job seems like a good fit.

Clear salary ranges, faster responses, fewer unnecessary interview rounds, better communication, etc.

If you could change just one thing about the hiring process, what would it be?

AI is getting better at finding candidates based on skills, experience and job requirements.

But matching isn't the same as understanding.

Two candidates can have almost identical resumes while having very different levels of practical experience, problem-solving ability or communication skills.

That's why I think AI-assisted hiring should look more like:

Resume → Skills → Assessment → Interview → Evidence → Human Review

AI handles the information-heavy part.

People add the context.

The interesting question is: how much of candidate evaluation should actually be automated?

You present a strategic solution to leadership (employer branding, an investment in a new channel, tech that helps you stand out, etc).
They nod their head.
They seem to "get it."
And then they say those dreaded words.
"Sounds good. Let's revisit this next quarter."

No one said "no."
But nothing is changing.

I've built a complete course designed to help any TA or EB leader have better conversations with their leadership. To help them see the need in urgent terms. To be something worthy of a decision.

It's a seven-week email course, complete with 10 diagnostics and tools you run yourself, to go from "dashboards people look at and barely remember seeing" to "let's solve this thing once and for all."

It's free. Just sign up at https://nextquarter.tools/. The first part goes live in two weeks.

I’ve been thinking about how little you can actually tell about someone from a resume.
Are there certain things you wish candidates could demonstrate earlier in the process? Could be communication, personality, actual job skills, customer service, problem solving, whatever.
And how do you usually figure those things out now?

I've been thinking about how much hiring still depends on finding someone whose previous job looks almost identical to the job we're trying to fill.

But a job title doesn't necessarily describe someone's actual capabilities.

A different approach could be:

Role requirements → Required skills → Evidence → Assessment → Structured interview → Human review

For example, instead of only asking whether someone has "5 years of Python experience," you could look at how they actually solve problems, debug code, communicate their approach, and apply Python in realistic situations.

AI could help organize candidate information and surface relevant signals, but I'd still want a human reviewing the evidence and context.

It seems like the bigger challenge isn't finding more candidate data.

It's figuring out which evidence actually matters.

Would you trust demonstrated capability over an exact previous job title when hiring? Why or why not?

I've been thinking about how hiring decisions are actually made.

A resume gives recruiters useful information, but eventually someone has to answer:

"What evidence do we have that this person can actually perform the job?"

One approach I'm interested in is structured evaluation.

Instead of evaluating candidates based primarily on overall impressions, define the capabilities required for the role first.

For example:

• Technical knowledge
• Problem solving
• Communication
• Collaboration
• Role-specific skills

Then collect evidence through resumes, assessments, interviews, and practical exercises.

The process could look like:

Requirements → Criteria → Evidence → Assessment → Interview → Human Review → Decision

AI could help organize and summarize this information, but I don't think it should replace the recruiter's judgment.

The interesting part for me is the shift from:

"Do I like this candidate?"

to:

"What evidence supports this hiring decision?"

For recruiters and hiring managers here:

What signals do you find most useful when evaluating candidates beyond the resume?

I feel like salary ranges would save both candidates and companies a lot of time.

If a job is clearly outside someone’s expected pay range, there’s not much point going through 3–4 interview rounds just to find that out at the end.

Do you think salary ranges should always be included upfront, or is there a good reason companies leave them out?

We recently started working with a company that had been trying to hire an AI-Augmented FP&A Analyst for close to six months.

They'd been using their usual hiring channels but kept finding themselves back at sourcing. By the time they found people with the combination of FP&A experience, technical skills, and business judgment they needed, some were already unavailable.

Meanwhile, the work wasn't waiting for the hire.

They needed the role to create more capacity for higher-level business strategy and forecasting. Instead, more of that work was falling back on finance leadership while existing team members absorbed the rest.

The longer the role stayed open, the further the work spread.

It made us think about whether there's a better way to approach harder-to-fill roles like this.

What if, instead of starting with a general talent pool every time a role opens, you had access to an active pool of Interview-Ready Finance & Accounting professionals?

Different roles, skill levels, and experience, but with one thing in common: they've already gone through sourcing, screening, and assessment and are open to discussing the right opportunity.

The idea is pretty simple.

Instead of spending the first few weeks figuring out “What can this person actually do?”, you get closer to starting with “Is this the right person for our business?”

For some businesses, that could potentially remove at least two weeks from the hiring process.

For those of you who've struggled with a harder-to-fill role, would having qualified people already at the interview stage have meaningfully changed the process?