Tell HN: My advice after I applied to 450 positions before getting hired

Your assumptions are objectively incorrect. That's the old way of applying to jobs and, while it may still work, it didn't work for me or anyone else I've talked to that has looked for a tech job in the last year.

If you have an "in" with somebody at the company you're applying to, then yes, that absolutely increases your chances of your resume at least being looked at by someone in the hiring chain. Barring that, though, cold calls are extremely unlikely to get you anywhere. As far as job applications go, AI-driven applicant tracking systems (ATSes) are what handle the majority of resume submissions now, and they absolutely does do not give a shit about thoughtful, artisanal resumes or job applications. More likely than not, it's a matter of what keywords an automated system seems in your resume that determines whether the company even bothers reaching out to you. And given that most companies are seeing 1-2 orders of magnitude more job applications now, it's incredibly unlikely a human is going to see your resume unless it passes the ATS filtering process.

Resume spray-and-pray is unlikely to get you good results, but that's not what the OP described. They used AI as a tool to automate parts of the resume preparation & submission process, & spent time on the parts they believed mattered.

As for pooh-poohing the 450 positions OP applied to, idk how many months they spent searching, but in terms of raw numbers that's pretty reasonable IMO. I submitted my resume to 150-175 companies over the course of 3 months before I found my job last year, and that was just before the tech job market started tanking harder -- those numbers seem low to me in today's market.

I like spray and pray, personally, at least on a theoretical level. I've never had to do it myself. But applying to hundreds or thousands of places with more or less the same (honest) resume and letting the employer filter you out seems way more economically efficient than eating the linearly scaling cost of customizing for each position heavily. There's likely all kinds of hidden information the employer has that you don't even after reviewing the position as written, and this puts the Hayekian ball in their court.

An applicant could probably get the best of both worlds by creating a preferred and a fallback tier; fallbacks get the spray and pray, and the preferreds get a customized resume.

> In my experience it’s much better to spend much more time on a target application to a company you’ve researched and maybe reached out to people or met current employees.

This works for some folks, and not for others. Many of us have already exhausted our network, at which point it’s still spray and pray even if you are reaching out directly to folks.

It’s also very different for remote folks vs. folks in the hubs.

At the last company I worked for in the U.S., I was part of the hiring process and as a result of a combination of rampant cheating and AI spam - we had to completely revise our procedures and settled on the following rules:

1. Minimum of a BCompSc or adjacent field (using a dedicated academic verification service)

2. Brief 30 minute phone screener

3. On-site interview

The jobs were actually fully remote positions, so we would rent out a shared workspace where we would conduct the interview itself. We found that this cut down on the chaff by about 90%.

I suspect that is poor advice in general, because if everyone did it it wouldn't work. The ideal way of getting a job is to use personal networks, but as advice it has similar problems - one reason it works so well is because it is a very strong signal that the applicant has resources that a random strong applicant doesn't have.

If someone can do that then they should. But if someone needs advice or information on how to get hired they probably don't have access to the methods that get them the easy hires.

Fun fact for anyone approaching this from a systems thinking perspective: usernamed7's experience is the invisible hand of the market signalling that there are around 450 too many people applying for software positions. Some people are going to have to give up; there is no other way.

If you do that, you'll quickly find that there is less than 10 companies (globally by considering remote) where you are the "perfect" match and you can also get in touch with a real person and get their attention. I've been doing that for quite sometime now and although you get interested leads, my experience has been that things end up falling through anyway as I estimate half weren't as well capitalized as they thought they were.

So the OP numbers game is a safer bet and one that everyone is playing right now. Not that I am playing this game but not everyone has the option to remain unemployed for this long.

I think you're describing getting jobs via networking.

That's a different thing to applying to 'public' jobs ads, which often have an AI discard most applications, then they just throw 50% in file 13, filter another 50% with stupid questions, and so on, and that's even if the job is real.

The same as for the freelancer sites; there's a high chance your applications won't even be read, so it's really not worth spending quality time on them.

> In my experience it’s much better to spend much more time on a target application to a company you’ve researched and maybe reached out to people or met current employees.

This is a much better approach and while others say that it doesn't work for them or it worked for them, well that is the point.

It is meant to give you an unfair advantage to anyone else applying to the same role who is applying straight through the jobs page which there are too many applicants.

This is why employers fast-track applicant referrals rather than go through the typical jobs page as the latter is their last resort ONLY IF there are no internal hires, referrals or existing employees that can fill the role.

> and maybe reached out to people or met current employees

Networking has always been the best way to get another job. Sadly, like most success in this world, it usually comes down to "who you know".

[flagged]

One of my job postings, I got over 100 applications. Most people weren't even tangentially related. They were spraying and praying. Worse yet, I had to screen everything by hand. A rather tedious job and made worse by Taleo. And as much I understand why people don't want AI screening and my company strictly prohibits it - by the end I was begging for one.

Finally, not even one application was matching the job profile and many had used AI to misrepresent their skill.

My company has a policy that once a position has to be opened, I need to fill it within 6 months. So, fed up I had to work with HR to message people on Linkedin.

This has basically dissuaded me using the spray and pray or AI generated resumes, if and when I start my job hunt.

In the Czech Republic, the post-2008 crisis dragged for quite a long time, and the job market around 2012 was so bad that when we put out an ad for a secretary, we got over 300 applicants.

I don't think we answered every single of them, we were a small company (15 people at that time), and even our wish for basic courtesy was constrained by real lack of time and people. That is also why we needed a secretary...

I can't even imagine the same situation in 2025, with AI. Would that be 3000 applicants?

Honestly these numbers don’t seem to change. I’ve had 200 resumes in 2002 posted on a Canadian government jobs board (for private sector) and the resulting resumes were like 2 good ones. Then about ten years ago a job posting on Stack Overflow attracted 450 applicants in a few days. Most were spam.

The only difference is that spam these days is custom tailored using AI. And it makes weeding out bad resumes more difficult. But absolute numbers remain about the same I’d say.

It's their job to go through applications.

"This is horrible advice and exactly why the job market is so broken."

You have this backwards. The only reason they have so many applicants in the first place is that the sector unemployment rate is so high and companies play games with evergreen postings.

There's no good approach here. If you can't rely on hiring through the network, you need to apply. And then either you get hired or someone else. It's all broken, but we can't expect every single person to collectively choose the "cooperate" option in this massive game if prisoner's dilemma.

Don’t blame the applicants. As the poster says, they have to do this.

Even if you're only applying to one opening per company per day, from a recruiter's perspective your application is likely to be equivalent in value to most of the 1,500 other applications they have still to weed out. Your advice boils down to "stop applying to tech jobs."

You get to fight with the army you have. This is what companies want… talent or qualification is not a primary objective.

my application was not "AI generated" nor was it for unrelated roles. Everything I applied to was in alignment with my resume. I would much rather be able to apply to a handful of jobs and for that to be enough. But I don't control the market, i can only participate in it.

Your CV and cover letter probably does a lot of the work at least in DACH.

The stories I hear from friends in HR, at varying company sizes, is the stuff of fiction. Apparently most people apply with utter trash, its no surprise they get filtered out if they can't even be bothered to present themselves properly.

At least at smaller companies, if you have something that actually looks like you tried, you immediately stand out. (After HR waded through all the bad ones)

We are also not talking about typos or gaps in the CV here, but things like: including everything expected in a CV, writing something even vaguely resembling a formal letter, or even, addressing the right company in it (bonus points if they are a direct competitor).

Traditional engineering companies in DACH area often ask to see your master's degree as they treat SW engineering like the other credentialed engineering professions(mechanical, etc) that sometimes carry liability.

when was the last time you applied for 3 or 4 jobs and already got a job? Things got complicated quite recently, maybe since only one or two years.

I was recently hiring for software role in the USA. It's pretty similar. Receiving that many applications is actually great, especially if you know how to go through them all. I'm efficient at it because I've worked as a recruiter for 20 years and a developer for 11 years. Happy to expand if you want to know more.

I assure you if i had done this, I would not have a job right now. This may have worked in the past, but not in this job market. It's a numbers game now, and when you've only got a few months until you're homeless you do not have the time to mess around.

upgrade to our premium tier for 10 more chances to beg to afford to feed yourself per day!

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Why would you want to limit people from applying to jobs? as if there are not enough barriers already. I'm not advocating for spamming to roles that are not a fit; everything i applied to aligned with my resume.

Wet dream of HR. Top-tier dystopian system that gives the companies ultimate control over whether you can afford food and shelter.

Thanks for sharing your experience, I'm sorry to hear you were unable to find a good role and had to take on more menial work.

If I recall, there was an article I read about how certifications do not really impact getting a job but YMMV depending on what you're certifying in and what jobs you're applying to. I had one interviewer skeptical i would be able to understand their GCP so in that instance being "GCP certified" in some way would have helped me.

Companies started this war when they laid off employees & began relying on applicant tracking systems (ATSes) to use algorithm-driven approaches to finding applicants well-suited to their open roles. Don't blame the people applying to jobs for also using AI to try and game the system in their favor.

Applicants lying on resumes does seem like it won't end well for them, even if it does mean they may get more initial callbacks from companies about open roles. But given how things are very much a numbers name right now, I also understand why an applicant would do it.

Game theory says if everyone else is spraying and praying, i miss out if i don't do the same. Spray and pray is not my choice, i'd rather apply to a handful of jobs and that be enough.

I also discourage lying on your resume that's just a genuine waste of everyone's time.

Indeed, the situation reminds me of those people on reddit who invite 20 people to a party and are surprised when nobody shows.

Of course there is supposed to be competition when applying to positions, but you should have a good idea of your chances of getting a job before investing/wasting your (and their) time.

In my experience, they were absolutely awful.

In the old days, they were awesome. More like talent agents, than matchmakers. They were usually older folks that advocated for you, maintained extensive Rolodexes (shows how long ago that was), which they exercised on your behalf (basically, they "networked" for you), and made pretty significant commissions. I believe that top-tier executive recruiters still work like this.

These days, they seem to be very young, and, I suspect, make a great deal less money.

Maybe you found a diamond in the rough with that one recruiter. In the 25 years I've worked in tech, I've only worked with one (1) recruiter that was good, & they helped me land two positions over the course of a decade. The rest ranged from benign to harmless or incompetent.

How do you go about finding a recruiter? (for technical roles like system engineers)

Thanks for your comment; remember that it's a marathon, not a race! Make sure you pace yourself, take breaks, and don't take rejections too personally.

I'm currently in the job market and I get loads of unsolicited offers too. The issue with these is at least for me they've all been no benefits contract positions paying well below the industry average. These aren't jobs anyone but the most desperate would accept.

but how do you get you money support your life before your FOSS work got some attention?

"forced entrepreneurship" is a thing, and i commend you for the effort. I tried my hand at it, but was not able to find strong PMF despite some early sales.

A recruiter’s job is not to know anything technical. The good ones are contracted by companies to recruit people.

Pretty much. There is a lot to be said about silly HR questions, but this one I consider legit. And after all - if nothing excites you about changing what you are doing for 1/3 of your waking life - just be honest, say "this job is not exciting and I'm already bored and unmotivated from the start". The outcome might be not what you want, though.

This type of question, if the company truly wants an answer to it, should only be asked at the end of an interview process.

Most people have no idea what a job is actually like before they have the job, much less during the interview process.

One way to approach job interviews is that one is interviewing the company while it is interviewing you.

It’s a pretty easy question! I always categorize my answer in a few parts - why am I excited about the product (helps people! Makes the world a better place!), the technology (I like how it is a combo of hardware and software!), and specifics from the job posting itself. Hopefully you can have a good answer otherwise why apply?

Yeah. Even without being overly candid, I don't think I'd ever have had an issue giving a fairly lucid answer to that question even if I left out the "And I need to eat part."

If there's some naive optimism in the answer, the company can take that into account in the context but may also decide the candidate is going to be disappointed or is BSing.

It's fine to ask during an interview but shouldn't be 'asked' as part of the initial application step.

Thanks for your comment, and good luck in your search!

why subject yourself to a 5 hour coding exercise before you've even spoken to someone at the company?

Cold applying to large corporate employers is an almost complete waste of time so that's not a mistake.

I've had 3 jobs at large corporate employers in the past 8 years, the only way I'd ever apply to one is if I already knew someone and they wanted me hired. Everything is just way too disfunctional to waste time on otherwise.

Personally, I make them get to the point ASAP. These calls seldom last more than a minute when it comes out that they're pushing no benefits contract jobs that are paying well below industry average.

Sure! it looked like this:

  call 1: general interview with recruiter
  call 2: Technical Interview with coding & questions
  call 3: Team call and culture questions
  call 4: call with CEO
  call 5: HR offer

The answer is literally always “It will allow me to pay my bills. This won’t be a giddy, young-love crush of a hobby for me. Hire me and I’ll just do good work, not cheerlead.”

The question is a synecdoche for “How awesome do you think we are, and so how much will we be able to coast on our respect for you as a result?”

The truth is most people's aim will be get more money, isn't it? but employer usually wants employer say something "big", they don't like the answer: for getting more money.

Yeah, I was also curious how many months those 450 applications were submitted over the course of.

This is not poor advice. It's what's required to land a job in this market if you've already exhausted your network. If you can land a position using your network, yeah, that's definitely going to be a better/easier route, but when your network is also unemployed/not hiring at all/involve fields you're not suitable for, spray and pray is the only way you're going to get something now days. Though i'm hesitant to back the AI usage, and personally haven't resorted to it.