[neilv]

If someone is doing 60 technical interviews in 30 days:

1. When I'm hiring, I wish the resume sites have an indicator when a person is interviewing excessively or indiscriminately, so that my company doesn't waste our time.

2. In the rare situation that I've been interested in working at a particular company, I wish I knew better ways for my interest to stand out from the "shotgun approach" applicants.

I did see one interesting approach by a company that tackles both scenarios: they have a unique and hefty job-application packet requirement, before you even know whether they're interested at all, nor what positions are available. The packet looked like it would take multiple days of interpretation, focused effort, and soul-baring to put together. I suspect, when the company skims the packet from someone who took the hit to put it together and submit it -- besides what value they get from qualitative interpretation of the content of the application -- they can also pretty easily detect many half-hearted efforts by people doing things like the article author's "109+" applications (if those people apply at all). A downside of this particular proof-of-work approach is that the required upfront effort on a cold application for a nebulous opportunity probably is filtering out some people the company would otherwise like to work with.

[irishloop]

Yeah I think your last sentence nails the reverse issue here: The expectation from companies to put in excessive amounts of work which from all candidates when most all of them will get no return on that effort (other than Experience™).

My hope is that most of us are somewhere in the middle: Neither excessively applying to 60+ companies, nor being asked to do several days' worth of labor for a limited opportunity.

[neilv]

I'm not complaining about being downvoted to negative after an initial jump up, but I'm curious why, and the comments don't say.

Was it the criticism of doing 60 interviews in 30 days, because some people think that's a good idea, or want to do that?

Was it because the wish for an indicator when a person is "interviewing excessively or indiscriminately" would be a privacy invasion, or more shift of the balance of power towards employers?

[jahewson]

As an interviewee I wish the resume sites had an indicator when a company is interviewing excessively or indiscriminately so I don’t waste my time.

[hiq]

The company needs to have a pretty good brand to be able to hire at all with this strategy. If you're NONAME INC., I don't know what role you're hiring for, and I don't know how much you pay, why would I even spend 20min to apply?

If you have a good brand, good benefits etc. maybe you can afford this. But at that stage, this strategy probably doesn't scale anymore (still not enough applicants) and you just do leetcode interviews instead.