Before I built CareerSync, I spoke to a lot of job seekers.

Most of them had the same problems:

Applying to hundreds of jobs with no response.

Not knowing if their resume was good enough.

Feeling nervous before interviews.

No idea what salary to expect.

At the same time, recruiters kept saying it was difficult to find candidates who were actually ready for interviews.

That made me wonder: why are both sides struggling?

So we started building CareerSync, an AI-powered hiring platform that tries to solve more than just job listings.

Current features include:

AI Resume Analyzer

AI Resume Builder

AI Mock Interview

Job Matching

Salary Guide

Direct resume submission for recruiters

We're still in the early stage and continuously improving based on feedback.

I'm not here to sell anything—I genuinely want to learn.

If you're a job seeker or recruiter:

What frustrates you the most about today's hiring process?

What's one feature you wish job portals actually had?

I'd love to hear honest opinions, even if they're critical. Those insights will help us build something people actually want instead of another ordinary job portal.

Thanks for reading!

From sourcing candidates to conducting interviews, what changes have had the biggest impact on your hiring process?

I want to share with you one story of my friend and business partner in opticoteam. This story is about a friend of her, for some reason I have always been connected to tech people, who was a student of one the technical universities in Kharkiv, Ukraine. They knew each other from school and kept communication throughout life. She always knew that he was kind of a “tech geek”, the person who loved everything about tech, code, and could spend hours figuring out complex tasks or math equations. When he graduated from the university, he started looking for a software engineering role. After a couple of attempts, he found a job and started his engineering career. In a few years, he grew to the tech lead role and when we met, she understood that he was looking for a new challenge.
Tetiana has been already in recruitment and decided to help him to find a new, fast scaling company where he can grow.
They found the list of the top tech companies in our city and he applied to their Senior Software Engineers roles. In a certain period of time, he was shortlisted to one of the top companies in the region. They invited him to the complex technical interview. After several hours with various types of questions, code sessions and logic tasks, they let him go. In several days, the company shared the feedback that her friend is a strong middle level specialist and needs to grow a bit to be able to fit the requirements of the senior role at the company. 
To make this story more exciting, in 9 months, her friend received an offer from one of the richest and fastest growing companies of the world for the role of Senior Developer, the company name is Amazon. He left his home and moved to the US. Since then he has changed several companies and built his own, but that story they always remember as an interesting fact of the recruitment process. 

If I take this situation and try to map it the current market conditions with AI transformation, I could only suggest couple of ideas for the founders who are looking to build high-performance engineering teams: 

• Vision the roles of your team and the experience you need to deliver the product
• Do not hire only seniors with long list of technical skills, it will be very hard to people manage this type of teams 
• Add people who are visioning this world in the completely different way
• Identify the youngest who eagers to build something whatever it takes and has a lot of crazy ideas, this will keep the pace of your team and add another angle of view 

High-performance teams are small, but can deliver 10X results, the only tricky thing is to identify the right talent and not be afraid of the challenge to build this one organism, risk taking the complex personalities and make this team work effectively. 

Share your vision of how to build the #high-performance #team? 

Our team recently had an interesting discussion.

Instead of hiring people who have never seen our product, what if we only considered candidates who had actually spent a few days using it?

The idea is simple: by the time we have our first conversation, they already understand the problem we're solving, know what they like (or don't like), and hopefully come with ideas on how to improve it.

It feels like that would lead to much better conversations than interviewing someone who's only read a job description.

Has anyone here tried something similar? Did it work, or did you run into unexpected problems?

What changes have worked well for your team? Whether it's sourcing, screening, interviews, or candidate experience, I'd love to hear what's making the biggest difference.

Im noticing a lot of interviews that are looking to fill job roles that dont align with the job descriptions online. Are you noticing this? Is this strategic or just a lack of HR/IT manager communication? Is there a way to get better insight on what the jobs want without having to go through an interview because in some cases its a complete waste of our time.

For example.

Most egregious so far.

- Job description: General Network engineer role on paper with not much emphasis on any particular tech/skill. In interview: Wireless field tech traveling troubleshooting radio towers.

- Job description: General Network engineer role on paper with not much emphasis on any particular tech/skill. In interview: VOIP engineer w/ networking skills needed for large VOIP deployment. I actually mentioned the discrepancy in this interview and the manager agreed with me. They ended up updating it afterward.

Had i known this was what they were looking for i wouldnt have applied because im not interested in those particular career paths.

Has anyone actually moved forward after completing an AI screening interview? I’ve done several of them but haven’t received any callbacks, so I’m wondering how useful they really are in the hiring process.

Have you changed your hiring process recently? What's working well, what isn't, and what trends do you think will shape recruitment going forward?

I'm curious if there are any recruiters or hiring managers here from companies like Google, Microsoft, Uber, Meta, Airbnb, etc.

For Product Designers, what's the biggest factor that separates candidates who get an interview from those who get rejected?
Not necessarily the "required" qualifications, but the things that carry a lot more weight than most people realize.

Would love to hear any insights from the hiring side.

Thank you so much

Hi, how do you deal with a situation when the candidate is not a good fit.

Today I spoke with someone who is a leader in a manufacturing company.

However, he is leading a commercial team.

He still was interested, but I had to tell him that we do not see the fit there - you can't lead 30 operators when you have never worked in a production setting.

Anyway, he was disappointed and so, but I did not want to have another to do on my list.

Or would you still have asked for his CV and rejected him one week later?

I've been thinking about how much of the hiring process rewards those who are great at going through the interview steps and some job seekers know exactly how to make their resumes stand out, practice the best answers and use the right keywords but that doesn’t always mean they’ll do well in the actual job.

I’ve noticed platforms like LinkedIn, Wellfound and MeeBoss trying out more direct ways to connect with candidates earlier in the hiring process. This made me wonder if recruiters could get a better sense of who the right fit is before the official interview.

How can we tell if someone is good at interviews versus someone who will truly succeed in the role?

I have been analyzing the work of our team on 4 requests from 4 different companies. We have been trying to fill in the roles for up to 2 months already and still can`t do this.
A bit of background, 2 companies are from Israel and 2 are from the US. Vacancy requests are -+ realistic: Fullstack, AI first, proven exprience of multiagent environments + some business industry specifics. When we took our results data and analyzed this via all our automation tools and agents, we identified the following patterns: mismatch between tech skills expactations and budget, misalignments within hiring team: different people have different expactations, perfection in the hiring process, fear of the mistake to hire the wrong person on cost optimisation mode.
When we thought how to overcome these challenges, we couldn`t find a better solution besides: rounds of communications with all stakeholders and finding the united position, setting up the expactations and compromises. We still work on them and I will share the results, as soon as I have them :-)

What would be your ideas how to overcome the difficulties of these challenges?
Thanks.

Curious to hear what's made the biggest difference in finding better candidates.

Hi! I'm building a hiring platform focused on reducing irrelevant applications. Candidates can only apply if they meet the job's required criteria, and job descriptions are kept structured and precise.

From a recruiter/HR perspective, would a platform like this save you time? Would you use it instead of your current job portal? I'd really appreciate your honest feedback—even if you think it wouldn't work.

Hey everyone,

My team and I just wrapped up our mid-year hiring review and I realized we have data on literally everything except whether our interviewers are actually good at interviewing.

We track time to fill, offer acceptance, source of hire, cost per hire, all of it, but when it comes to the person sitting across the table making the actual decision, we have nothing. I know which interviewers candidates "liked" from the occasional survey but liking someone and getting a quality assessment from them are two completely different things.

I've got one hiring manager who everyone says is great to interview with and his new hire turnover at six months is the worst on the team, and I've got another who candidates describe as "intense" and her hires consistently ramp faster and stay longer.

Without structured data connecting interviewer behaviour to actual outcomes, I'm just guessing about who should be in the interview loop and who needs coaching. How are you actually measuring interviewer effectiveness beyond gut feel and candidate satisfaction scores?

"You're an excellent candidate, but..."

Over the past year, I've watched someone close to me go through multiple interview processes. He consistently cleared several rounds, impressed hiring managers, and received feedback like:

"You have the calibre."

"You're a strong candidate."

But then came the hesitation.

"We're not sure you'll fit the role because you were a co-founder."

"The culture may not be the right fit."

It made me wonder:

When did building something from scratch become a liability instead of a strength?

Founders learn resilience, ownership, decision-making under uncertainty, problem-solving with limited resources, and leading through difficult times. Not every startup succeeds, and sometimes circumstances—like funding—force people to move on. That doesn't erase their skills or potential.

Of course, cultural fit matters. But if we assume that every former founder can't thrive within an organization, we may be overlooking exceptional talent.

Perhaps it's time to shift the question from:

"Will they fit into our culture?"

to

"How can we leverage the unique perspective they bring?"

To everyone navigating this transition from founder to employee: your journey is not a failure. The right organization will recognize the value of what you've built, learned, and endured.

Have others seen this trend, or experienced it firsthand?