&gt; But do you think this is easier to do if you get less candidates<p>This is one of my pet peeves. The number of applications you get has absolutely nothing to do with the number of candidates you should consider, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the number of candidates that you can competently consider. You don&#x27;t have to get through every resume, and trying to do so will just lead to biased &quot;how can I say no&quot; ad hoc filtering games.<p>The solution is to use an unbiased* pre-filter to restrict the number of applicants that you let into a thorough consideration process. Random selection is the pre filter that I would use, but there may be other valid choices (though outside of random selection, it&#x27;s easy to let bias slip in).<p>Bonus points if you are transparent with candidates that get filtered out this way about why and how that happened. If you&#x27;re messaging is constructed well, then they should understand that there were too many candidates to give all of them fair consideration, and that being filtered out reflects in no way on their worth as a candidate. So, they will be more likely to apply for future openings.<p>Sorry if it feels like I&#x27;m criticizing you. I don&#x27;t mean to at all. It&#x27;s just that this idea of being overwhelmed by candidates is absolutely pervasive in discussions of hiring, and it&#x27;s a completely fake problem that leads to absolutely real difficulty on both sides of the hiring process.<p>* A lot of organizations resort to biased pre-filters to cull resumes, like unnecessary requirements. I&#x27;m of the opinion that this leads to suboptimal results, particularly if they align significantly with the biased filters that the rest of the industry your company is competing in uses. It means that there are qualified candidates that end up systematically under-recruited. Those are the Moneyball candidates. You should want those candidates because they are the most productive relative to the salaries they can demand. And even if you don&#x27;t give them a lower salary than you would give a candidate that passes all the typical filters, then you will still have a significant retention advantage, which all told may be worth more than shaving salary in many (most?) situations.