Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Why Are Online Job Applications So Badly Designed?
First time accepted submitter GreyViking (3606993) writes Over the past few years, I've witnessed a variety of my intelligent but largely non-technical nearest-and-dearest struggling to complete online job applications. The majority of these online forms are multiple screens long, and because they're invariably HTTPS, they'll time out after a finite time which isn't always made known to the user. Some sites actively disable back/forward buttons but many don't, and text that's sometime taken a lot of effort to compile, cut and paste can be lost. And did I mention text input boxes that are too small? Sometimes it seems that the biggest obstacle to getting a job can be being able to conquer the online application, and really, there has to be a better way: but what is it?
Did you RTFM?
Authority questions you. Return the favor. -- d474
..seems to be online forms in general. Considering how disparate various forms and their submission mechanisms are I think the only course of action would have to be at the browser level. Perhaps some automatic usage of the LocalStorage api to store text typed into these fields. Though that might lead to some security concerns. Perhaps recalling that cached data requires some form of user authentication for the browser itself (which isn't a bad idea in general).
I dunno, just spitballin' here...
What annoys me the most is they ask you to upload your resume... and then ask you to fill out a million fields with the exact same information that's already on your resume.
Real jobs don't come from HR. They come from business contacts.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
... there has to be a better way: but what is it?
The first step would be for the job application site to ask their users and listen to the comments about the site.
You know, just like Dice listens to all our comments about beta...
alias sudo="echo make it yourself #" ; # https://pipedot.org/~stderr & http://soylentnews.org/~stderr
the problem is HR
the *concept* of an online job application is fairly simple from a coding perspective...making some kind of form requires some choices but this is basic stuff
the systemic issue is with the people who define the parameters for the information...the HR people
HR is usually full of people making decisions that affect whole systems they have no understanding of and have no way of receiving feedback systemically to improve, part of the general problem in US biz structure
applying for a job is excruciating in the US today...it's just layers and layers of bad management
Thank you Dave Raggett
Online job application systems aren't intended to find good candidates.
They're designed to allow HR and recruiters to select the specific set of buzzwords they're looking for but have no understanding of, all while doing the minimum amount of work and the least amount of understanding.
You don't really think HR reads and is capable of evaluating all of those resumes, do you?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
HR is the problem.
Totally useless dept set up to provide jobs for airhead daughters of executives 50 years ago.
Now it shits all over everything.
The majority of these online forms are multiple screens long, and because they're invariably HTTPS, they'll time out after a finite time which isn't always made known to the user.
You realize that normal forms only open a connection to the HTTP{,S} server when you click the "Submit" button, right? You can sit there for infinite time because there's no open connection to time out until such time as you request it. What you're seeing is a combination of client- and server-side timers that have nothing whatsoever to do with the transport you'll be using to upload your information. And yeah, I'd mildly prefer my HR information to be encrypted en route, TYVM.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
With the corollary that most organizations don't see it as a value proposition, and just want it up and running as quickly as possible.
So you get a half-assed solution due to minimum resources thrown at it, and a low perceived ROI.
If your first interaction with a company is a shitty, poorly designed tool which makes no sense -- you can bet there will be numerous others within the company.
I have often found the processes and tools used by the HR and Finance people are the most arcane, pointless, and quite often useless tools you can imagine -- and they're curated by people who are rigid, inflexible, and can't grasp when their tool is inadequate for the job.
I have seen lots of tools which do not actually cover the breadth of the reality for which they're used. Something is either an apple or an orange, but you've got a coconut in your hand, and the system doesn't know anything about coconuts, and the people who run it don't care about coconuts. The coconut is your damned problem.
They just keep acting like their system is useful and mandatory.
And then it gets really fun when you need to use several useless tools to enter the same information so that another department can get it the way they insist on it.
My wife enters her time into no less than 4 different tracking systems, all used by different departments for different purposes.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
If they won't mail it, assume the company tries to force every employee into a rigid structure where you will not be free to operate in the manner that best suites you. Your day-to-day work life will be subject to procedures as frustrating as the online form and endless TPS reports.
Always use command-click when submitting a form, or whatever the key combination is to create a new window or tab. (might be shift-click, or control-click ... or right click, and select from the menu)
I admit, this won't always work in the 'one page' applications built exclusively in JavaScript, but when it does, it means that the failure page is in a new window, and you can go back to copy & paste the content after you re-authenticate.
Some of the nastier JavaScript 'enhanced' forms will try to make callbacks as you're typing, and when THOSE time out, they redraw the screen and you lose everything ... but luckily, in the case of HR applications, most of those were written 10+ years ago and never updated.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
they are designed by HR.
HR doesn't know jack about interface design.
HR gets the cheapest person they can because it isn't considered critical.
Web entry forms are usually farmed out to people just getting into the industry.
No one has to learn engineering techniques to become 'qualified' to write software.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There is no relationship between an online job application and getting a job. Online job applications are neglected because no one needs 10,000 online forms filled out for 1 job.
It is well established (through most of history) that direct contacts and personal networks are the most likely way to get jobs. A few seconds on Google pulls up many research studies and sites that maintain real statistics (rather than just made-up numbers) on the topic. Like this one among many.
That one linked to is interesting because of the various charts. For those companies they track, direct referrals are only 6.9% of the applicants but represent 39.9% of those actually hired. Job boards and web sites account for 74.9% of the job applicants and 35.8% of the hires. This means that while it is still important to apply through the web because they pull many workers through there, it is far more effective to get an employee referral. In other words, one hour of working your social network looking for a referral is equivalent to roughly 12 hours of submitting web-based job applications.
The Internet is great for research and finding people in the organization, great for learning about openings. But when it comes to actually applying for a job, spend your time farming your social network to find someone who knows someone at the company rather than just applying through their site.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
I find it humorous that most of the comments are decrying the "HR" departments, when in reality a number of businesses using applicant tracking platforms are small business and do not really have any HR department to speak of.
They (and I, as I am a small business owner myself) use them so that I can 1. have one place that IS NOT my inbox to manage candidates, and 2. I can ensure that I am getting consistent info across all candidates.
And while I do not ask people to upload a resume and then fill out previous work experience fields, I can understand the necessity for such things, so that the small business owner can quickly scan over each applicant quickly, rather than trying to decode various resume layouts.
Because at the end of the day, my time is valuable, and any system that let's me spend less time doing things is going to be a boon to me, even if the downside is that I lose an applicant here and there in the process.
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
If you can not put up with a BS online job application from Target, how could you ever possibly work for Target?!? Supposedly the best way to get hired, is to answer all of the questions as if you were Ned Flanders. Hard working and honest, but not too ambitious, compliant.
Applicant Tracking System - This is the buzzword for an "apply online" type thing. I work for one of the big ones.
Here are some excuses
1) Employers can get sued if it isn't done a certain way. All of the laws are based on horrible paper applications.
2) Employers are scared of "the cloud" so you have to fill out a new application every time you apply to a new job even though the last 10 places you applied were using the same software
3) The perspective employees "candidates" are not the customer, the HR Director is the customer.
4) Statistically, longer, harder application processes result in higher employee retention rates.
that last one is a big one. My software can do all kinds of pre-employment testing for all kinds of things... skills, personality, mental alertness, etc.
The longer the testing process, the more "candidates" quit before completing. HOWEVER, the longer the testing process, the more likely an employee will be successful at their job.... To put it frankly, if you will wade through the shit to get hired, you will wade through it to stay employed. It doesn't even statistically matter what the results of the test were. Simply testing for anything at all will reduce employee turnover. The same can be said for unwieldy applications. If a candidate is not serious about filling out an application, they will not be serious about work either.
That said... I promise our applications are better than most, at least our javascript works, and progress is automatically saved... Still it all sucks (blame the lawyers), we just try to suck less.
The ability to catch up with technology and protocol is directly proportional to how forward thinking the practice is. You are not going to see a witch doctor with a carefully created and compliance list of potions. Similarly, you are not going to get an HR department to care about technology enough to build a compliance website.
Not an option for most in this job market. When the job market gets tighter many employers are in for a rude awakening as to how objectionable their bsuiness practices are.