[BoiledCabbage]

> * Filter candidates who put objective statements in their resume > * Filter candidates who don't put objective statements in their resume > * Filter candidates who don't have a link to some online portfolio (Github, personal blog, etc.) > * Filter candidates who don't contribute to open source

I can't tell if this post is supposed to be sarcastic or not. I'm assuming so? Because these criteria are horrible compared to what's currently done now. "* Filter candidates who put objective statements in their resume". What in the world is that?

If it is just sarcastic then why even post it? Why not post an actual proposal for a better way to interview?

[LaffertyDev]

Its both. I chose some particularly ostentatious examples to drive home you can select for whatever it is you may or may not want without subjecting your applicants to _tests_. I figured the dual-objectives would make that clear.

> * Filter candidates who put objective statements in their resume".

> What in the world is that?

Some people, as well as my early education, recommended to put "objective" statements on your resume stating your literal objective in applying for the role. I'm surprised you haven't heard about them! edit: Personally I dislike them as archaic wastes of space.

[BoiledCabbage]

So quoting myself

> Why not post an actual proposal for a better way to interview?

And quoting you above:

> you can select for whatever it is you may or may not want...

Yes a person can do anything they want when interviewing candidates. That was never a question. The topic being discussed is what alternative method that gets you great candidates.