Making something optional on an application is a waste of everyone's time.

If it is optional, and it doesn't have bearing on the application process, then don't ask me to include it.

If it is optional, but it does have bearing on the application process, then I assume that I'm not a good fit for you.

If it is optional, and it officially doesn't have bearing, your screeners and interviewers may still have an internal bias that favors applications which "go the extra step" to do the optional work. Even if they don't, I'm going to assume that they do and that we're all wasting everyone's time in asking me to apply.

Disagree. There can be multiple optional things, where nobody is expected to have all of them, but everybody should have some of them.

It’s a way to expand the pool. Startups especially need a lot of diversity of skills, so rather than specifying the one ideal set of skills/experiences, it’s better to be open to a wider range and then use what you’ve gained from this hire to inform what you need in the next.

Rigid checkbox criteria makes sense in dinosaur companies, but not small ones.

They're literally flagging one "sanctioned" way to provide signal as an example in a resume advice post--how is that a waste of time? This lets people infer what other types of "optional" content might provide signal: publications, blog posts, etc. Transparency in the application process is fantastic and it's wild to me that people are upset about a company posting some ways that applicants can make themselves stand out. This is order of magnitudes better than VC, finance, etc.

This. Companies just like to make candidates go that extra mile to finally not even look at their resume. Job listings where they already are interviewing candidates or have hired one are still up. Imagine how much time is wasted with frivolous optional questions.

How interesting. The first two assertions would imply that you model candidate fit as a pure product of the dimensions you have. i.e. if any of the dimensions are absent then the candidate isn't a fit.

Well, the difference is that my candidate fit model is not a pure product. It has some sums in it. Your teammates at my org will be people like that.

My interpretation of "optional" is note: if someone else checks the box, you are doomed.

Slightly disagree, they're just providing one potential way to signal experience. I'm sure there are other ways not listed (firth author publications from tier 1 conferences or journals) that are more valuable. I think you're right that this could be used as a tie-breaker, all other things being equal.

Yeah, those bullets are really low point. A lot of off-guide in consideration going on (tbh, lots of bullshit)