There&#x27;s a difference between pointing out the flaws of the new system and flatly denying any of its benefits.<p>Luddites would smash looms so that they could keep their old jobs; I&#x27;m merely suggesting that if companies don&#x27;t want a million resumes for every open position there are things they could do -- which they are not currently doing -- to help with this.<p>The problem with email is that it&#x27;s frictionless.  It costs an immeasureably small amount of money to send an email so as long as there are some suckers out there who&#x27;ll buy your penis pills, sending spam emails is profitable.<p>Similarly all the friction has been taken out of the &quot;submitting a resume for a job&quot; experience and companies are now getting deluged.  That&#x27;s probably not the optimal outcome for employers or job seekers, but the only people who have any power to change it are the employers.  Job seekers don&#x27;t have any real influence on the systems by which employers choose employees, at least not until they get hired and even then it&#x27;s just about impossible.<p>The only knob job seekers have to turn is how many resumes they send out and there&#x27;s little&#x2F;no downside to sending out more so it&#x27;s entirely unsurprising that they choose to do so.<p>Companies on the other hand have a bunch of knobs they can turn regarding how they accept resumes.  They&#x27;re choosing to turn none of them and dealing with the problem on the back-end (keyword matching) rather than the front-end (increasing friction).  This leaves them with a quality problem because people aren&#x27;t keywords and someone with a year too little of experience X might have more than enough actual skill with the thing you need.  It&#x27;s kind-of foolish to assume people all learn at the same rate, isn&#x27;t it?  But because of the quantity problem that employers have, they can&#x27;t solve the quality problem because that would cost far, far too much.  They&#x27;d have to spend tens of thousands of dollars on engineering time to try and find the close-but-not-exact-but-definitely-good-enough needles in the not-close-at-all resume haystack.<p>This is why various companies have tried all kinds of different recruiting tactics like Google&#x27;s early days where you had to solve problems from billboards or how a lot of companies want to see your open source work or for you to take a coding quiz.  That&#x27;s solving the problem on the front end.<p>But for some reason not everyone has picked up on this and out of all the programming jobs in the world maybe only 10% (no idea, it&#x27;s just a guess) get filled by people who solve the problem on the front end.  Everyone else does it on the back end, and their methods for dealing with it that way are not up to the task.  This is a well documented phenomena, there are countless articles on the subject.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cio.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;2398753&#x2F;careers-staffing&#x2F;5-insider-secrets-for-beating-applicant-tracking-systems.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cio.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;2398753&#x2F;careers-staffing&#x2F;5-inside...</a><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.today.com&#x2F;money&#x2F;how-employers-make-it-hard-find-good-workers-1C6598075" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.today.com&#x2F;money&#x2F;how-employers-make-it-hard-find-g...</a>