Mixing
![Warning: Remote Host Identification Has Changed! [duplicate]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjbpfN9tAutmK93bJRC3ZoROZzi2TJDms5n8_qJuhgE0a9b52OOHayv3NGT8igAdFL7byXNst-_1DZK5SjrIJ28_6RQPUpBROqMs5s6jo-ZsjX8kjDwfxJufIitH3TaQRXWaGSQKRQib-f/s72-c/1.jpg)
Would applying for jobs repeatedly with modified/updated resume annoy recruiters enough to ban the candidates?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I am talking of the situation when the application is rejected at the resume screening stage without human contact, not post interview.
In the age of online applications banning would be as simple as filtering the contact emails. A genuine candidate would have the same contact emails in all updated resume and could be easily affected.
I think most of us assume the resume we have created at the moment is good and use it to apply to jobs. Lets say you are rejected for whatever reason and coincidentally you've created a better resume, again which you think is good at the moment, and you reapply. Would that annoy the recruiter enough to ban you?
Just want to know how things work. I am assuming it is a single recruiter or a small group where everyone knows every detail. I am especially interested in recruiters that are HR of the said companies, more than outsourced/contracted recruiters.
Tangentially, what is considered "good form" when re applying after rejection without even a human contact and nothing is mentioned about wait period?
resume job-search recruitment
asked Jun 29 '14 at 13:31
Dirt
293
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I am talking of the situation when the application is rejected at the resume screening stage without human contact, not post interview.
In the age of online applications banning would be as simple as filtering the contact emails. A genuine candidate would have the same contact emails in all updated resume and could be easily affected.
I think most of us assume the resume we have created at the moment is good and use it to apply to jobs. Lets say you are rejected for whatever reason and coincidentally you've created a better resume, again which you think is good at the moment, and you reapply. Would that annoy the recruiter enough to ban you?
Just want to know how things work. I am assuming it is a single recruiter or a small group where everyone knows every detail. I am especially interested in recruiters that are HR of the said companies, more than outsourced/contracted recruiters.
Tangentially, what is considered "good form" when re applying after rejection without even a human contact and nothing is mentioned about wait period?
resume job-search recruitment
asked Jun 29 '14 at 13:31
Dirt
293
this seems rather subjective - what annoys one recruiter probably won't annoy another...
– yochannah
Jun 29 '14 at 19:05
1
Aren't questions related to workplace more or less subjective, dare I say "by definition"?
– Dirt
Jun 29 '14 at 19:08
See Good Subjective/Bad Subjective. This question seems to be on the pure opinion (bad) Side.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 30 '14 at 18:09
There is something very ironic about deciding what is subjective and the quality of subjective! This question could easily fit the guidelines, based on how one interprets them, and its no different from other questions in workplace forum about dealing with co workers etc.
– Dirt
Jun 30 '14 at 18:20
That said, I've edited the title and added emphasis on context to make it more inquisitive like it was intended and not accusing like it might have come across.
– Dirt
Jun 30 '14 at 18:34
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I am talking of the situation when the application is rejected at the resume screening stage without human contact, not post interview.
In the age of online applications banning would be as simple as filtering the contact emails. A genuine candidate would have the same contact emails in all updated resume and could be easily affected.
I think most of us assume the resume we have created at the moment is good and use it to apply to jobs. Lets say you are rejected for whatever reason and coincidentally you've created a better resume, again which you think is good at the moment, and you reapply. Would that annoy the recruiter enough to ban you?
Just want to know how things work. I am assuming it is a single recruiter or a small group where everyone knows every detail. I am especially interested in recruiters that are HR of the said companies, more than outsourced/contracted recruiters.
Tangentially, what is considered "good form" when re applying after rejection without even a human contact and nothing is mentioned about wait period?
resume job-search recruitment
asked Jun 29 '14 at 13:31
Dirt
293
I am talking of the situation when the application is rejected at the resume screening stage without human contact, not post interview.
In the age of online applications banning would be as simple as filtering the contact emails. A genuine candidate would have the same contact emails in all updated resume and could be easily affected.
I think most of us assume the resume we have created at the moment is good and use it to apply to jobs. Lets say you are rejected for whatever reason and coincidentally you've created a better resume, again which you think is good at the moment, and you reapply. Would that annoy the recruiter enough to ban you?
Just want to know how things work. I am assuming it is a single recruiter or a small group where everyone knows every detail. I am especially interested in recruiters that are HR of the said companies, more than outsourced/contracted recruiters.
Tangentially, what is considered "good form" when re applying after rejection without even a human contact and nothing is mentioned about wait period?
resume job-search recruitment
asked Jun 29 '14 at 13:31
Dirt
293
edited Jun 30 '14 at 18:33
asked Jun 29 '14 at 13:31
Dirt
293
asked Jun 29 '14 at 13:31
Dirt
293
asked Jun 29 '14 at 13:31
Dirt
293
293
this seems rather subjective - what annoys one recruiter probably won't annoy another...
– yochannah
Jun 29 '14 at 19:05
1
Aren't questions related to workplace more or less subjective, dare I say "by definition"?
– Dirt
Jun 29 '14 at 19:08
See Good Subjective/Bad Subjective. This question seems to be on the pure opinion (bad) Side.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 30 '14 at 18:09
There is something very ironic about deciding what is subjective and the quality of subjective! This question could easily fit the guidelines, based on how one interprets them, and its no different from other questions in workplace forum about dealing with co workers etc.
– Dirt
Jun 30 '14 at 18:20
That said, I've edited the title and added emphasis on context to make it more inquisitive like it was intended and not accusing like it might have come across.
– Dirt
Jun 30 '14 at 18:34
add a comment |Â
this seems rather subjective - what annoys one recruiter probably won't annoy another...
– yochannah
Jun 29 '14 at 19:05
1
Aren't questions related to workplace more or less subjective, dare I say "by definition"?
– Dirt
Jun 29 '14 at 19:08
See Good Subjective/Bad Subjective. This question seems to be on the pure opinion (bad) Side.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 30 '14 at 18:09
There is something very ironic about deciding what is subjective and the quality of subjective! This question could easily fit the guidelines, based on how one interprets them, and its no different from other questions in workplace forum about dealing with co workers etc.
– Dirt
Jun 30 '14 at 18:20
That said, I've edited the title and added emphasis on context to make it more inquisitive like it was intended and not accusing like it might have come across.
– Dirt
Jun 30 '14 at 18:34
this seems rather subjective - what annoys one recruiter probably won't annoy another...
– yochannah
Jun 29 '14 at 19:05
this seems rather subjective - what annoys one recruiter probably won't annoy another...
– yochannah
Jun 29 '14 at 19:05
1
1
Aren't questions related to workplace more or less subjective, dare I say "by definition"?
– Dirt
Jun 29 '14 at 19:08
Aren't questions related to workplace more or less subjective, dare I say "by definition"?
– Dirt
Jun 29 '14 at 19:08
See Good Subjective/Bad Subjective. This question seems to be on the pure opinion (bad) Side.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 30 '14 at 18:09
See Good Subjective/Bad Subjective. This question seems to be on the pure opinion (bad) Side.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 30 '14 at 18:09
There is something very ironic about deciding what is subjective and the quality of subjective! This question could easily fit the guidelines, based on how one interprets them, and its no different from other questions in workplace forum about dealing with co workers etc.
– Dirt
Jun 30 '14 at 18:20
There is something very ironic about deciding what is subjective and the quality of subjective! This question could easily fit the guidelines, based on how one interprets them, and its no different from other questions in workplace forum about dealing with co workers etc.
– Dirt
Jun 30 '14 at 18:20
That said, I've edited the title and added emphasis on context to make it more inquisitive like it was intended and not accusing like it might have come across.
– Dirt
Jun 30 '14 at 18:34
That said, I've edited the title and added emphasis on context to make it more inquisitive like it was intended and not accusing like it might have come across.
– Dirt
Jun 30 '14 at 18:34
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Contract recruiters work for employers. They mostly get paid 3-6 months after an employer hires a candidate referred through them.
They're in it for the money, like most people in business.
In-house recruiters are also measured on how effective they are at finding people to fill the company's jobs.
It really doesn't matter how annoyed they are with a particular candidate, as long as that candidate can successfully be hired, and the candidate doesn't waste too much of the recruiter's time or appear dishonest.
If you've found a contract recruiter with lots of job listings that fit your skills, it is a good idea to have a serious conversation with that recruiter. Offer to buy her a coffee or something, and talk about how best to present your case to those various employers. Then, you can work together to craft specific resumes and cover letters that best will get you interviews at those companies.
If you work with her you'll make her job easier, and she'll be able to explain who you are in more detail.
Employers can tell the difference between a resume from a candidate known to the recruiter and one that's thrown in over the transom from an unknown candidate.
If you're working with an in-house recruiter -- somebody dedicated to finding the right people for just one employer -- it may be a little harder to get a conversation with her. But still, you should try. You should explain that you're really interested in the company, then ask for advice on how to get an interview. You can request this conversation by email or in a letter.
Like many puzzles in the workplace, this one can be solved by having conversations and developing relationships.
answered Jun 29 '14 at 20:44
O. Jones
13.6k24070
Thanks. Your reply made me realize I missed a crucial point in my question - the recruiters are the HR or the companies. I have edited it since. This reply was helpful nonetheless.
– Dirt
Jun 29 '14 at 21:15
updated to consider contract vs. inhouse recruiting staff.
– O. Jones
Jun 29 '14 at 21:47
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Contract recruiters work for employers. They mostly get paid 3-6 months after an employer hires a candidate referred through them.
They're in it for the money, like most people in business.
In-house recruiters are also measured on how effective they are at finding people to fill the company's jobs.
It really doesn't matter how annoyed they are with a particular candidate, as long as that candidate can successfully be hired, and the candidate doesn't waste too much of the recruiter's time or appear dishonest.
If you've found a contract recruiter with lots of job listings that fit your skills, it is a good idea to have a serious conversation with that recruiter. Offer to buy her a coffee or something, and talk about how best to present your case to those various employers. Then, you can work together to craft specific resumes and cover letters that best will get you interviews at those companies.
If you work with her you'll make her job easier, and she'll be able to explain who you are in more detail.
Employers can tell the difference between a resume from a candidate known to the recruiter and one that's thrown in over the transom from an unknown candidate.
If you're working with an in-house recruiter -- somebody dedicated to finding the right people for just one employer -- it may be a little harder to get a conversation with her. But still, you should try. You should explain that you're really interested in the company, then ask for advice on how to get an interview. You can request this conversation by email or in a letter.
Like many puzzles in the workplace, this one can be solved by having conversations and developing relationships.
answered Jun 29 '14 at 20:44
O. Jones
13.6k24070
Thanks. Your reply made me realize I missed a crucial point in my question - the recruiters are the HR or the companies. I have edited it since. This reply was helpful nonetheless.
– Dirt
Jun 29 '14 at 21:15
updated to consider contract vs. inhouse recruiting staff.
– O. Jones
Jun 29 '14 at 21:47
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Contract recruiters work for employers. They mostly get paid 3-6 months after an employer hires a candidate referred through them.
They're in it for the money, like most people in business.
In-house recruiters are also measured on how effective they are at finding people to fill the company's jobs.
It really doesn't matter how annoyed they are with a particular candidate, as long as that candidate can successfully be hired, and the candidate doesn't waste too much of the recruiter's time or appear dishonest.
If you've found a contract recruiter with lots of job listings that fit your skills, it is a good idea to have a serious conversation with that recruiter. Offer to buy her a coffee or something, and talk about how best to present your case to those various employers. Then, you can work together to craft specific resumes and cover letters that best will get you interviews at those companies.
If you work with her you'll make her job easier, and she'll be able to explain who you are in more detail.
Employers can tell the difference between a resume from a candidate known to the recruiter and one that's thrown in over the transom from an unknown candidate.
If you're working with an in-house recruiter -- somebody dedicated to finding the right people for just one employer -- it may be a little harder to get a conversation with her. But still, you should try. You should explain that you're really interested in the company, then ask for advice on how to get an interview. You can request this conversation by email or in a letter.
Like many puzzles in the workplace, this one can be solved by having conversations and developing relationships.
answered Jun 29 '14 at 20:44
O. Jones
13.6k24070
Thanks. Your reply made me realize I missed a crucial point in my question - the recruiters are the HR or the companies. I have edited it since. This reply was helpful nonetheless.
– Dirt
Jun 29 '14 at 21:15
updated to consider contract vs. inhouse recruiting staff.
– O. Jones
Jun 29 '14 at 21:47
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Contract recruiters work for employers. They mostly get paid 3-6 months after an employer hires a candidate referred through them.
They're in it for the money, like most people in business.
In-house recruiters are also measured on how effective they are at finding people to fill the company's jobs.
It really doesn't matter how annoyed they are with a particular candidate, as long as that candidate can successfully be hired, and the candidate doesn't waste too much of the recruiter's time or appear dishonest.
If you've found a contract recruiter with lots of job listings that fit your skills, it is a good idea to have a serious conversation with that recruiter. Offer to buy her a coffee or something, and talk about how best to present your case to those various employers. Then, you can work together to craft specific resumes and cover letters that best will get you interviews at those companies.
If you work with her you'll make her job easier, and she'll be able to explain who you are in more detail.
Employers can tell the difference between a resume from a candidate known to the recruiter and one that's thrown in over the transom from an unknown candidate.
If you're working with an in-house recruiter -- somebody dedicated to finding the right people for just one employer -- it may be a little harder to get a conversation with her. But still, you should try. You should explain that you're really interested in the company, then ask for advice on how to get an interview. You can request this conversation by email or in a letter.
Like many puzzles in the workplace, this one can be solved by having conversations and developing relationships.
answered Jun 29 '14 at 20:44
O. Jones
13.6k24070
Contract recruiters work for employers. They mostly get paid 3-6 months after an employer hires a candidate referred through them.
They're in it for the money, like most people in business.
In-house recruiters are also measured on how effective they are at finding people to fill the company's jobs.
It really doesn't matter how annoyed they are with a particular candidate, as long as that candidate can successfully be hired, and the candidate doesn't waste too much of the recruiter's time or appear dishonest.
If you've found a contract recruiter with lots of job listings that fit your skills, it is a good idea to have a serious conversation with that recruiter. Offer to buy her a coffee or something, and talk about how best to present your case to those various employers. Then, you can work together to craft specific resumes and cover letters that best will get you interviews at those companies.
If you work with her you'll make her job easier, and she'll be able to explain who you are in more detail.
Employers can tell the difference between a resume from a candidate known to the recruiter and one that's thrown in over the transom from an unknown candidate.
If you're working with an in-house recruiter -- somebody dedicated to finding the right people for just one employer -- it may be a little harder to get a conversation with her. But still, you should try. You should explain that you're really interested in the company, then ask for advice on how to get an interview. You can request this conversation by email or in a letter.
Like many puzzles in the workplace, this one can be solved by having conversations and developing relationships.
answered Jun 29 '14 at 20:44
O. Jones
13.6k24070
edited Jun 29 '14 at 21:46
answered Jun 29 '14 at 20:44
O. Jones
13.6k24070
answered Jun 29 '14 at 20:44
O. Jones
13.6k24070
answered Jun 29 '14 at 20:44
O. Jones
13.6k24070
13.6k24070
Thanks. Your reply made me realize I missed a crucial point in my question - the recruiters are the HR or the companies. I have edited it since. This reply was helpful nonetheless.
– Dirt
Jun 29 '14 at 21:15
updated to consider contract vs. inhouse recruiting staff.
– O. Jones
Jun 29 '14 at 21:47
add a comment |Â
Thanks. Your reply made me realize I missed a crucial point in my question - the recruiters are the HR or the companies. I have edited it since. This reply was helpful nonetheless.
– Dirt
Jun 29 '14 at 21:15
updated to consider contract vs. inhouse recruiting staff.
– O. Jones
Jun 29 '14 at 21:47
Thanks. Your reply made me realize I missed a crucial point in my question - the recruiters are the HR or the companies. I have edited it since. This reply was helpful nonetheless.
– Dirt
Jun 29 '14 at 21:15
Thanks. Your reply made me realize I missed a crucial point in my question - the recruiters are the HR or the companies. I have edited it since. This reply was helpful nonetheless.
– Dirt
Jun 29 '14 at 21:15
updated to consider contract vs. inhouse recruiting staff.
– O. Jones
Jun 29 '14 at 21:47
updated to consider contract vs. inhouse recruiting staff.
– O. Jones
Jun 29 '14 at 21:47
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f27936%2fwould-applying-for-jobs-repeatedly-with-modified-updated-resume-annoy-recruiters%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
this seems rather subjective - what annoys one recruiter probably won't annoy another...
– yochannah
Jun 29 '14 at 19:05
1
Aren't questions related to workplace more or less subjective, dare I say "by definition"?
– Dirt
Jun 29 '14 at 19:08
See Good Subjective/Bad Subjective. This question seems to be on the pure opinion (bad) Side.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jun 30 '14 at 18:09
There is something very ironic about deciding what is subjective and the quality of subjective! This question could easily fit the guidelines, based on how one interprets them, and its no different from other questions in workplace forum about dealing with co workers etc.
– Dirt
Jun 30 '14 at 18:20
That said, I've edited the title and added emphasis on context to make it more inquisitive like it was intended and not accusing like it might have come across.
– Dirt
Jun 30 '14 at 18:34