[goncalomb]

Looks good, definitely an impressive "weekend project". I'll probably use it in the future.

I don't mean to sound rude. But, can you explain what you mean by "trusted by students and employees from top universities and companies worldwide" while showing some university/company logos? How can such a new project make those claims? Was it released elsewhere privately? Looking at the git history, I see it was created 2 days ago, in a single commit.

[tornato7]

He could have just sent it to a few friends at those universities/companies. Nobody should take those sorts of 'trusted by' sections seriously anyway.

[dustincoates]

I once came across a landing page for a well known (to the HN crowd, at least) that claimed us as a customer, even though we weren't using the products they were advertising us on. It took a month or so for them to remove it, and since then I've been a lot more cynical about what I see there.

[throwaway2037]

Real question: How much do you think young start-ups pay majors to add their name to the 'trusted by' sections? For me, it feels like paid adverts in search results. I always ignore/discount them. That said, 'trusted by' sections are targeting The Suits (CTOs, etc.), not hands-on folks like me.

[vasco]

They're targeting the marketing person that put them there because the landing page template they bought to customize had such a section. Nobody gets paid anything for it.

[xitang]

Thanks for you kind word and for asking this great question. I have to admit that the claim is more for marketing purpose to make it look impressive. The truth is that we tested the design with a small group of folks, including myself, students, a career coach and friends. We use this design during our job searches and we have landed interviews/offers from the companies listed in the logo clouds. It works for a small sample size of us, so we include the logos up there to enhance its credibility that it at least has proven to work for some companies out there.

[rosmax_1337]

>I have to admit that the claim is more for marketing purpose to make it look impressive.

If you are going to be honest about lying by admitting to us that you lied, just state that it was a lie, don't euphemize it as marketing. Otherwise the "honesty" just comes of as manipulation.

[xitang]

I apologize for the confusion the statement has caused and comes off as lying. The statement is accurate and is in fact tested & likened by students and employees listed in the logo cloud. I appreciate the feedback that given it is only a handful of us, this statement can give the wrong impressions that it is more widely used than people perceive. I want to keep the project honest, clear and transparent as much as possible and I just create the issue to track this: https://github.com/xitanggg/open-resume/issues/7. I will remove the statement next to not mislead anyone and might consider adding it back only if we have more social proofs from more users in the future.

[goncalomb]

I guess you could just be totally open about it, and change the wording to something like "the open-resume design already helped some people land positions at", then show the logos. That way you are being honest, and doesn't look like a direct endorsement from those companies. You get your logos for "marketing", and you are safe from misinterpretation. IANAL.

[xitang]

Love this suggestion!

[rosmax_1337]

>The statement is accurate and is in fact tested & likened by students and employees listed in the logo cloud.

I have no doubts your claim as it was written in text was correct. The lie was by layout and usage of company and university logos. These kinds of "we are trusted by" and "in cooperation with" sections are common, it's what you're making in that section, and the usage of logos in those sections always mean the same thing: these organisations use/trust our software.

[skwirl]

Where was the lie? It’s pretty crappy to baselessly accuse someone of lying.

[rosmax_1337]

They claimed companies like Google and some universities trusted their software. If you read it word by word, it was only a claim that people who worked at the companies and who studied at the universities trusted their software, but the usage of company and university logos also made clear claim that the companies and universities themselves had endorsed it.

They admitted it was for marketing purposes, and I added that rather than to euphemize it as marketing, they should instead admit that they lied, otherwise their attempt at honesty comes of as manipulative. It is possible to tell a lie by the usage of logos and layout, not only in text.

This has now been removed from their website, you can see their original layout here: https://web.archive.org/web/20230625170119/https://www.open-...

[dotandgtfo]

I don't really attribute this maliciously. Yeah, it may be overstepping it a bit but the wording can make sense (but they should definitively change it). Developers generally aren't great marketers and these guys aren't native in english.

[rosmax_1337]

>I don't really attribute this maliciously.

I don't attribute it to stupidity. (Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.)

They tried to use other organizations logos in their "loved by section" to make their product seem more trustworthy than it was. By using smart language they could have gotten away with it in case of a lawsuit, and most companies don't even bother to go after stuff like this. By the time a lawsuit could have been relevant, their landing page would have changed. It's because I respect their competence that I attribute it as intentional.

Don't get me wrong, I don't give a rats ass about what someone does with some large company/organization logos on their website, it's not that I'm trying to stop some misuse of their trademarks. But if you chat with us about your page, and try to be honest about that the section there is toeing the line of truth, don't call it marketing, just tell us you lied on your webpage. It's not the end of the world to tell a lie on the internet.

[x3874]

It's false advertising. This can get expensive quickly.

[LastTrain]

This thread is making me understand why they have to teach ethics.

[jokethrowaway]

It's not a lie if people from those companies are endorsing the product

Now, I know from experience, you probably want to hear from their legal team (or have a contract which make it explicit) before putting a company's logo on your website as an endorsement - but I doubt they'll sue you

[drekipus]

Just remember, it's not a lie, if you believe it.

[teekert]

I’d take as “99% of dentists agree”. Maybe she/he should have said that haha.

I see nothing wrong with this lighthearted marketing. It’s a single dev project, it’s just fun to market it this way. It’s easy to see it should be take with a small grain of salt.

[proxiful-wash]

Its just bad tacky thing to do the author is trying to just make organized resumes and the skill gains for those who have figured it out have negligible talent. Those that can truly represent themselves without the crutches of this OP will easily shine through as a better hire. And in-fact if I see this template I am going to think the candidate is cheating.

[thebruce87m]

It’s an interesting claim - out of interest I looked up how many countries actually use a resume over a CV and some sources say only United States, Australia, and Canada.

[mminer237]

What's the difference between a CV and a résumé? I understand academia uses longer CVS, but I thought they were synonymous terms for general job hunting.

[IIsi50MHz]

CV is your life's work (all of it). It tends to get longer as you live. Résumé is a summary. It typically is one or two pages[1], and can omit anything not deemed relevant to the recipient.

[1] Sidebar: Every bit of résumé advice is "fighting words", with diehard adherents on opposing sides. In this instance, "1 page" can be taken as "What have they been doing with their life? Discard it.", while "2 page" can be taken as "Wasting my time. Discard it.". The most successful strategy is hard to achieve: know the personal pet-peeves of the recipient, and adjust accordingly.

[philipwhiuk]

It's lots of minor things:

* CVs are generally longer - 2-4 sides. Resumes are more of a one page and done thing.

* Resumes often include a mission statement or similar. CVs don't - you'd put that stuff on a 'cover letter', if at all

* CVs are generally not adjusted per job - it's everything, with only the older stuff abbreviated. Whereas resumes are tailored.

[mminer237]

Ah, I didn't realize all CVs are longer. Yeah, a résumé longer than a page is considered bad practice.

However, as an American, I've never heard of a résumé including a mission statement or being adjusted per job. As you said, they're very short documents. I've always seen them just giving the same factual history of the person's employment/education, and the person similarly attaches a cover letter tailored to the specific job, repeating some highlights and how it qualifies him and saying how perfect this job is for him.

[ivolimmen]

Well I am Dutch and I personally don't differ between the two. Just different names. Btw my CV is now 7 pages long but I am a consultant.

[MissTake]

OR it could be simply regional.

In the UK I created CVs, in the US I created Resumes.

Same thing, different names.

[calmoo]

The two words are pretty much synonymous now, there isn't an effective difference.