[rmATinnovafy]

The problem is not the software. The problem are the employers. Everyone wants the perfect candidate. But no candidate is perfect. Everyone has good skills and bad baggage to carry from job to job. The aim should be to find people who will add to the team rather than building a perfect team. You can't do that with software (yet).

[yumraj]

Well you're agreeing with me when you say "yet", and hence my comment about opportunity.

The problem is the software and the software is not going to go away. The opportunity is to make the software more intelligent so that the output is more in line with what would work.

[rmATinnovafy]

Oh, I'm not disagreeing on the opportunity available. You are, to quote Hermes from Futurama, technically correct (the best kind).

I do think that this problem is up there with world peace.

[dorian-graph]

Technology, as wonderful as it is, is not going to change employers, or rather, certain ideas often found in employers.

[rhizome]

Why haven't DICE or Indeed.com or whoever seem to have done any work on that front? I'm thinking the ROI isn't there.

[tomjen3]

Considering that it costs 20% for a match by a recruitment company, there is enourmous ROI for a program like that. It would almost be as good as the ability to print money.

Not to mention the cost you could get for the unemployed to sign up ("It costs you on average 2k/month not to use our service").

[rhizome]

Enormous ROI for the company, not so much the recruiter, who enjoys the moral hazard of getting paid either way, whether their filtering sucks or not.

[tomjen3]

Sure, if the company hires the applicant.

[rhizome]

Which leaves the question of why no work appears to be done in this direction.