> Our biggest gripe is that at least 50% of the applicants never follow our instructions on how to apply correctly. We put very specific steps on how to apply and want it followed (i.e. subject line, cover letter, links to portfolio, PDF resume).

You need to consider the ROI for the applicant before saying "OMG follow instructions."

Too many of your fellow employers ignore applicants (ROI = none), even those they interviewed. No "we received the application," no "here's where you seem to lack," no "here's where you seem to be strong." Even introductory classes with 300-400 students in them provide more feedback to their constituents than employers to candidates.

Hence many of your applicants decrease their investment as much as possible.

I do not have 30-40 minutes to twist and turn words in order for them to fit to your specific job description to let you know that I know the shit out of [insert skill]. Not because I don't care about you but because I already assume, looking at previous experiences, that you don't care about me (both as a candidate and as an employee).

It is your job to accurately spot potential and current skills from a resume and respond to the applicant with a request for more information. (In situations where you do not have a separate HR department for recruitment, then do ask for all information outright, but don't be surprised and judgemental when you do not receive it. If the candidate is of interest, reply back and ask for more information again.)

This is an excellent point. I have been contacted directly by companies before when they find my LinkedIn, Github or website. Occasionally they interest me so I have updated my resume and forwarded it along only to never hear from them again[1]. Luckily I'm happy at my current job and don't have to deal with the annoyances right now.

[1] Oddly enough, my public profile is pretty sparse so a more in depth resume shouldn't really turn anyone off.

Yes, I definitely consider the time of the applicant. I would hate to miss a good person by making it tough to apply.

I am thinking it should be five minutes or less to apply to our job. 30 to 45 minutes seems like A LOT. I am not sure I would even take that amount of time to apply for a job. I would rather introduce myself personally via email or social networks to the employer than spend that time.

One point is that Indeed.com and other job boards make it too easy to apply. I believe, that within a few clicks and someone can apply to a posting, so often the person may not have read the ad fully.

This is turning more and more into a blog post. I should run the stats on our last posting of craiglist vs. indeed and showcase the data.

Oddly enough, I think our final choice came from indeed. But out of the eight actual interviews, I know the other seven came from craigslist posting (or blog post). Of the other indeed candidates, I remember going on a roll of saying "nope" to about 10 to 15 in a row because they did not meet our needs (no experience, etc). Probably need to add a filter in the job posting.

FWIW, I have, in the past, applied for jobs at colleges and other research institutions which all have their own resume input system. All different from each other, of course, so it takes 30--45 minutes to completely fill one in. Yes, they have a semi-smart parser that will take a .DOC or a .PDF and pull out the relevant info, but they are more often wrong than right, so it's easier to just manually key in every field right off.

So, count me as a non-fan of these web-based systems.

With such a system, one may expect a quick response, but most of my applications went into a no-reply black hole, except for the submission confirmation provided by the form.

The most annoying one was a phone call from one institution, that I received the first day I started work at a different institution, 6 months after the application was submitted.

On the other side, most of the private sector jobs I have applied to have been very efficient at responding: either a quick rejection after a few days, or moving ahead in the process.

Good point. I think we were going to keep it super simple.

Name, Email, Question 1 - Cover Letter, Question 2 - Some question pertaining the job, and PDF attachment (only PDFs - we hate getting Word docs and other file attachments)

This way we could automate our subject line, track the emails, and the two questions would hopefully weed out some lower end applications.

We may need a CAPTCHA too, to keep out spam.

[Edited for commas as the list did not format correctly]

"The most annoying one was a phone call from one institution, that I received [...] 6 months after the application was submitted."

Was that institution the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, by any chance? (Or possibly another federal entity?) I've heard that story and have reason to believe it several times.

I've always liked the tactic of requiring the applicant to follow some sort of instruction. Something like, "begin your cover letter with 'My favorite flavor of ice cream is <insert your favorite flavor>.'" Once they've followed your instructions, they've earned the right to be informed of all changes in the application lifecycle. This will allow you to ignore a surprisingly large number of applicants who couldn't be bothered to read and comprehend the instructions but gives any well-meaning applicant the respect they deserve.

I also like questions like the above because it lets you know something about your new hire. I've used the question I listed above before, and then followed up by having a pint of their favorite flavor for them and their new team at the end of their first day. For a few bucks per hire, it's neat positive experience that let's the new hire share something, albeit superficial, that they wouldn't normally share until much later.

Just curious, but what ATS are you using that makes sending 50 canned replies tedious?

Every resume just comes into Outlook as a single email and then sorted into a folder based on the subject (hence our need to follow directions). A bit old-school, but it works.

So we would need to reply individually to every single email (i.e. hit reply and cut-paste). 50 emails would probably be 15 minutes of work, but I would rather not waste that time.

The main point is that some of the resumes we get are completely off topic. I wish I could showcase some examples, but alas that would probably get us into trouble. Why should we waste the time in responding to auto posters, people who just attach a resume with no cover letter, or misspell subject lines?

I think our new system would solve all of this, just need time to code it this summer.

I'm sure that this is something you've considered and chose not to do for a good reason, but it seems like using a different email address for each job posting would eliminate a lot of the problems caused by an incorrect subject line.

Actually, oddly enough, I did not think about that. Thanks for the tip. We have changed the email address from time to time, when one gets picked up by spam.

We do like the subject line to be a pass/fail test though - especially on jobs that require attention to detail (i.e. bookkeeping or junior developers who are on support/punch lists).

The instructions are pretty clear and if someone cannot follow step one, they are probably not going to be able to follow our internal checklists.

Oh, it's definitely a great screening mechanism for the candidates. But you don't necessarily want it to mess up your own organization process too. :)