[deng]

Haha, exactly this! The resume is the first work sample you receive from an applicant, and it's absolutely baffling that even nowadays with all the tools available, a LOT of them still have glaring typos, poor grammar, confusing formatting, wrong length, you-name-it. It is absolutely correct that a perfect resume might not mean much in terms of skills, however, it's been very rare that someone with a poorly made resume even made it through the first screening interview.

[Cocktail]

I am one of those who made through the hoop of first and second rounds with the most horrid of CVs, still cant believe I got the job. Extremely happy that I did, I was told later that the resume I submitted was the worst one by far, but the person (ie. Me) was the best applicant, which I still consider funny yet depressing.

[_nalply]

If a company excludes bad resumes they are possibly just optimizing for good resume writers just by assuming that good resume writers are good workers.

[tmcdos]

It's like handwriting - good handwriting does not necessarily mean good worker but bad handwriting quite often means bad worker.