[mytailorisrich]

I don't see a problem with the "traps" mentioned, which are only a mean to check whether the candidate has read the job description in full before applying and/or that (s)he can follow simple instructions when applying.

So not really traps at all, and not aimed at tripping candidates up.

[lhorie]

Kinda goes both ways though. A lot of job descriptions aren't actually accurate about what the job entails, so why should a candidate take yours literally?

If you're being shady about your interview process, expect to only get people who can't afford to look elsewhere, while good candidates pass you up for potential employers who act respectfully towards the candidate's time.

[JAlexoid]

Adding requirements for candidates to be fulfilled during the application process shouldn't be a trap!

[mytailorisrich]

It's not a trap. Perhaps the author did not choose the best term.

[JAlexoid]

It is. He literally explains what kind of stupid actions he suggests going "candidates to replace the subject line of their application with a specific phrase".*

If you want attentiveness, then ask for a rational action to be completed... Not senseless idiocy.

* - Had I seen this request(I read the job postings carefully) I would definitely skip the job.

[mytailorisrich]

If someone cannot follow a simple instruction in a job posting then perhaps they shouldn't call the job poster 'stupid'...