[johnnyanmac]

Its almost like we have 3-5+ rounds of interviews for some reason.

Meanwhile, I'm sure a 20 minute conversation can weed out 90+% of fake resumes. If the resume was the problem when hiring practices wouldn't be so optimized around trying to find the perfect resume.

[dilyevsky]

Two things here:

1. You still need resume filtering because any public req will receive literally thousands of resumes most of which are poor fit. And that's after HR software did its thing btw. Can't spend 20m on thousands of applications most of which are low effort slop sent by folks who aren't even committed / competent enough to read and follow the req. This was already an issue 10 years ago before AI so I imagine it's at least 10 times worse now.

2. Once you're past that point, at least in my personal experience conducting hundreds of these sessions, most people are pretty bad at going into any kind of depth on stuff listed on their resume so your best strategy (that is if you want to hire anyone at all) is to ask generic questions that are role specific. At best you can tailor some of them to what's in the resume.

[johnnyanmac]

1. Of course. I'm not saying a basic filter isn't needed. But if you don't trust your basic filter, how is that going to go when you need to actually invest time interviewing the candidates? You're already off on the wrong foot because your looking for falsehoods instead of qualities.

2. It varies, but I don't think it's a lack of ability so much as liability. My industry is full of NDAs. I can't exactly give precise dates and timelines even for released products. So it's a weird dance of how much I can disclose and how much is a red flag to talk about (since inevitably, this place also probably had me sign an NDA as well).

I'm fine with generic role questions. It usually falls back to leetcode stuff, though.