[p1esk]

If the wording of a job ad determines whether you want the job or not, then you're doing it wrong. Here's the process I follow when looking for a job:

1. Choose a company that does something interesting and meaningful.

2. Try to understand what they are looking for, and if that's really what you want to do for 8+ hours every day.

3. Put everything on your resume that will maximize your chance to get the interview. This has nothing to do with your actual experience. Remember that you only need to be better than the rest of applicants, and usually it's not hard if you're good.

4. During the interview, evaluate the people. This is the most important step. These are the people who you will spent more time with than with your spouse, so choose carefully.

You can't get any idea about those people from the job ad, because they might not have even seen that ad. And even if they wrote it, phrases like "passion for what you do" mean different things for different people. Ultimately, yes, you should be somewhat passionate about what you do. If you're not, go to step 1.

[iamdave]

then you're doing it wrong

What's right and what's wrong in this case here? I'm gainfully employed now, at a company I actually have come to really enjoy working for, making arguably the most I ever have in my career so far.

The method worked for me, doesn't mean it's universal, also doesn't mean this success can be directly and completely attributed to screening out copy/pasted job ads (nor any of the other criteria I look for in a potential employer). Only that I have a method that I've stuck to for deciding who I want to work for, and haven't found much of a reason to change it. Personal financial and professional goals are being met, and supported by my employer.

It works for me, if your system helps you succeed as a job seeker, more power to you-but if people here have systems that are working for them and getting the outcomes they're looking for in a career, I don't know if we should be so eager to tell these individuals they're "wrong".

[p1esk]

The difference between your method and mine is that you arbitrarily reduce the pool of potentially great jobs available to you. If that pool is large, then sure, keep filtering. You can also close your eyes and pick one from the list without looking at the job ad at all, I bet you will have similar success rate.

[iamdave]

Well sure, if you want to get into the weeds of actively measuring what success looks like across different methods of screening out potential employees then that conversation can break down to the atomic level. A part of me feels like the number of people who do this as a conscious and deliberate part of their job hunt is going to be smaller than those who don't.

And that's perfectly fine, for both parties.

I'm deliberately trying to stay as high above ground here and proffer that individual choices kind of matter here, and taking the broadly utilitarian viewpoint of: if the way you look for jobs results in you getting the kinds of jobs you want and opportunities you're looking for-not to mention satisfies the financial goals you have for yourself, great.

That's where it begins and ends for me personally.

[Retric]

By adding extra steps you are also greatly limiting the openings you consider. Any large company will have good and terrible teams, overall culture has far less impact than you might think.

But, critically you can only go to so many interviews. Thus missing out on a few openings is just not a big deal.

[watwut]

The company in general doing something interesting does not imply I will get interesting position. And overall boring product does not imply I will have boring position either.

Mine position is going to be different then position of other people in same company, so it makes a lot of sense to evaluate things that signal what my specific position is going to be about.