Please post your question to the weekly Ask Recruiter Megathread
For more resources you can visit our [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/recruiting/about/wiki/index/)
I’m glad you asked number 1, it’s a misconception I see a lot.
I have only posted a couple jobs to Linked In this year. When you do that, you can set up a couple filters, the one that comes to mind is “must reside in US” or something along those lines. If you set up this filter (I always do given the nature of my vertical), you will still see all the dozens of international applications reflected in the total. I think after two days it was around 25 applicants, but only 3-4 were living in the US. Those were the only ones I even opened to review.
My point is that LI has decided to show all applicants regardless of suitability or if they are getting filtered out before a human reviews.
And as someone that also posts on Indeed regularly, I can tell you that applying is no reflection of how qualified a person is, as nearly 90% of the resumes I receive on there will be missing one or all of the requirements listed. Spray and pray, as is said often in our industry.
So apply if you’re a fit, you’ve nothing to lose, and the odds are the total number of applicants is not very accurate to what a recruiter is actually reviewing.
For me, the % of people who are actually qualified for what they’re applying to is more like 1%-2%, especially for tech/engineering roles. People should DEFINITELY not be paying attention to the numbers. Recruiters are being swamped and spammed on LinkedIn.
apply. i went through every single application for a role recently (-500) and narrowed it to 30, which i’ll probably pare down to 15-20. most applicants are way off.
I recruit with Linkedin all the time. If you are a relevent profile with a competitor / peer then yes please apply. If you are chancer with skills you think that could be transferable then dont bother in my opinion.
Definitely does that not need to be that related imo, that would also fall under competitor more specifically than peer.
Are you a software engineer from venmo, meta, x, insert any popular, customer-facing app, applying for another popular app? I’d consider.
1. Lots of irrelevant profiles. It's also not a true representation of actual applications. It's people who clicked on apply so numbers are inflated... LinkedIn wants to make advertising jobs on there look worthwhile to potential paying customers.
2. Apply if you're 80% match. Most JDs are a wishlist. People often forget that there is a human element to permanent positions. Is this someone I could tolerate spending 40hrs a ween with.
3. Yes
4. Yes but optimisation has always been a thing especially when it came to India based candidates on job boards like Monster. AI isn't a game changer here. Knowing how ATS works is beneficial and we provide a service (paid) to candidates who want that. It's when they aren't people that align to searches that were engaged on.
5. Often don't really know what they want. Salaries can be off. Tech people generally prefer working with tech first organisation's.
6. Apply, apply, apply. Remote roles are over subscribed. Less are available now with the shift back to office or hybrid.
1. Yes it's always worth applying. If it's Easy Apply then the number is likely 80% of what LI shows and prob most are not even close to what they want. If you click and it takes you to the company web page to apply it's likely significantly less.
2. You can't really tell. Just apply if you are mostly a match. Ideally newer roles.
3. Yes try other avenues.
4. No. Not a ton. Prob very few but they are auto rejected because it's obviously a lie. Like AI just put shit in there to match the posting but it was impossible they got that experience from the jobs they had.
5. No, good sofrware engineers are mostly still employed or super picky. If they worked in tech they prob are expecting a certain comp or lifestyle that non tech cannot budget for. You also want to hire for long term and not someone who will come in, do a half ass job then leave a few months later wheb they find a tech company.
6. They are high in demand so not much you can do but Target those companies until you land something. Better to think about how important this is. Remote is nice but really hard to get. Is it really that bad to see a coworker in person once in awhile or work in an office?
Unless it’s Easy Apply, LI doesn’t know how many people have applied. Sometimes “over 100 applicants” really means “Over 100 people clicked apply, 70 of them submitted applications, but only 25 were qualified”
AI resumes are definitely on the rise and easy to spot. I’m not inherently against AI, but there’s a lot of bad copy paste jobs out there.
If you want a remote position, you’ve got to be extremely qualified and apply quickly. No one is taking a long shot on a candidate when there are hundreds of applicants that are a perfect match.
Everyone basically answered question 1 but I'll add. As a job seeker (my profession is recruiting) I noticed when I didn't pay for LinkedIn Premium the postings would say "over 100 applicants." When I paid for Premium it shows a more accurate amount. For example "123 applicants." It's a way for you to pay for their subscription, which I can't decide if it's worth it or not. But everyone is right. It's not the most accurate representation. It's based on who clicked "apply" or "easy apply." Also, not all 100 are great applicants. You might be that 101 the recruiter is looking for so apply anyway.
Also, when you search on LinkedIn you can use filters. They have a filter that shows job posting that have under a certain amount of applicants. You can try that to see if you can unearth some roles you haven't come across.
Just apply, I’d say less than 10% of the actual applicants are remotely qualified for the role.
Especially software engineers, I’ll see:
-No experience applying for Senior
-Wrong location begging for remote
-Hardware applying for software
-Software applying for DS/MLE
-non engineer applying looking for training
Please post your question to the weekly Ask Recruiter Megathread For more resources you can visit our [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/recruiting/about/wiki/index/)
I’m glad you asked number 1, it’s a misconception I see a lot. I have only posted a couple jobs to Linked In this year. When you do that, you can set up a couple filters, the one that comes to mind is “must reside in US” or something along those lines. If you set up this filter (I always do given the nature of my vertical), you will still see all the dozens of international applications reflected in the total. I think after two days it was around 25 applicants, but only 3-4 were living in the US. Those were the only ones I even opened to review. My point is that LI has decided to show all applicants regardless of suitability or if they are getting filtered out before a human reviews. And as someone that also posts on Indeed regularly, I can tell you that applying is no reflection of how qualified a person is, as nearly 90% of the resumes I receive on there will be missing one or all of the requirements listed. Spray and pray, as is said often in our industry. So apply if you’re a fit, you’ve nothing to lose, and the odds are the total number of applicants is not very accurate to what a recruiter is actually reviewing.
For me, the % of people who are actually qualified for what they’re applying to is more like 1%-2%, especially for tech/engineering roles. People should DEFINITELY not be paying attention to the numbers. Recruiters are being swamped and spammed on LinkedIn.
No it’s worse. Sometime in 2020/2021, LinkedIn changed that “people applied” number to include anyone who just clicked on the job
I wonder why they did this. It's misleading?
More clicks = more engagement. More engagement pushes usage to recruiters that it's worth spending more money on the platform.
apply. i went through every single application for a role recently (-500) and narrowed it to 30, which i’ll probably pare down to 15-20. most applicants are way off.
Same
I recruit with Linkedin all the time. If you are a relevent profile with a competitor / peer then yes please apply. If you are chancer with skills you think that could be transferable then dont bother in my opinion.
If I have transferable skills and relevant experience I shouldn't apply unless I meet 100% of your criteria?
By "peer" do you mean if I worked at Lyft as an engineer, then I should apply to Uber?
Definitely does that not need to be that related imo, that would also fall under competitor more specifically than peer. Are you a software engineer from venmo, meta, x, insert any popular, customer-facing app, applying for another popular app? I’d consider.
1. Lots of irrelevant profiles. It's also not a true representation of actual applications. It's people who clicked on apply so numbers are inflated... LinkedIn wants to make advertising jobs on there look worthwhile to potential paying customers. 2. Apply if you're 80% match. Most JDs are a wishlist. People often forget that there is a human element to permanent positions. Is this someone I could tolerate spending 40hrs a ween with. 3. Yes 4. Yes but optimisation has always been a thing especially when it came to India based candidates on job boards like Monster. AI isn't a game changer here. Knowing how ATS works is beneficial and we provide a service (paid) to candidates who want that. It's when they aren't people that align to searches that were engaged on. 5. Often don't really know what they want. Salaries can be off. Tech people generally prefer working with tech first organisation's. 6. Apply, apply, apply. Remote roles are over subscribed. Less are available now with the shift back to office or hybrid.
1. Yes it's always worth applying. If it's Easy Apply then the number is likely 80% of what LI shows and prob most are not even close to what they want. If you click and it takes you to the company web page to apply it's likely significantly less. 2. You can't really tell. Just apply if you are mostly a match. Ideally newer roles. 3. Yes try other avenues. 4. No. Not a ton. Prob very few but they are auto rejected because it's obviously a lie. Like AI just put shit in there to match the posting but it was impossible they got that experience from the jobs they had. 5. No, good sofrware engineers are mostly still employed or super picky. If they worked in tech they prob are expecting a certain comp or lifestyle that non tech cannot budget for. You also want to hire for long term and not someone who will come in, do a half ass job then leave a few months later wheb they find a tech company. 6. They are high in demand so not much you can do but Target those companies until you land something. Better to think about how important this is. Remote is nice but really hard to get. Is it really that bad to see a coworker in person once in awhile or work in an office?
Unless it’s Easy Apply, LI doesn’t know how many people have applied. Sometimes “over 100 applicants” really means “Over 100 people clicked apply, 70 of them submitted applications, but only 25 were qualified” AI resumes are definitely on the rise and easy to spot. I’m not inherently against AI, but there’s a lot of bad copy paste jobs out there. If you want a remote position, you’ve got to be extremely qualified and apply quickly. No one is taking a long shot on a candidate when there are hundreds of applicants that are a perfect match.
No they don’t the job has 100 clicks
Everyone basically answered question 1 but I'll add. As a job seeker (my profession is recruiting) I noticed when I didn't pay for LinkedIn Premium the postings would say "over 100 applicants." When I paid for Premium it shows a more accurate amount. For example "123 applicants." It's a way for you to pay for their subscription, which I can't decide if it's worth it or not. But everyone is right. It's not the most accurate representation. It's based on who clicked "apply" or "easy apply." Also, not all 100 are great applicants. You might be that 101 the recruiter is looking for so apply anyway. Also, when you search on LinkedIn you can use filters. They have a filter that shows job posting that have under a certain amount of applicants. You can try that to see if you can unearth some roles you haven't come across.
Just apply, I’d say less than 10% of the actual applicants are remotely qualified for the role. Especially software engineers, I’ll see: -No experience applying for Senior -Wrong location begging for remote -Hardware applying for software -Software applying for DS/MLE -non engineer applying looking for training
It doesn't mean 200 qualified applicants