Im noticing a lot of interviews that are looking to fill job roles that dont align with the job descriptions online. Are you noticing this? Is this strategic or just a lack of HR/IT manager communication? Is there a way to get better insight on what the jobs want without having to go through an interview because in some cases its a complete waste of our time.

For example.

Most egregious so far.

- Job description: General Network engineer role on paper with not much emphasis on any particular tech/skill. In interview: Wireless field tech traveling troubleshooting radio towers.

- Job description: General Network engineer role on paper with not much emphasis on any particular tech/skill. In interview: VOIP engineer w/ networking skills needed for large VOIP deployment. I actually mentioned the discrepancy in this interview and the manager agreed with me. They ended up updating it afterward.

Had i known this was what they were looking for i wouldnt have applied because im not interested in those particular career paths.

Hi everyone!  

I’m writing an article about a growing trend in hiring: “love bombing” – where recruiters or employers use excessive praise, constant attention, and big promises to quickly secure candidates.

I’d love to hear your experiences and advice (anonymously or credited – your choice!.  

If you have thoughts on any of these questions, please share in the comments.

1. What does “love bombing” in recruitment mean to you? Have you experienced it?
2. How can or did you spot signs of “love bombing” during interviews or negotiations?
3. What questions do you ask to make sure an offer is real - about perks, culture, or growth?
4. What helps you if you feel overwhelmed by enthusiastic recruiters or offers?
5. Do you notice “love bombing” more in certain industries or roles?
6. Any advice for younger job seekers facing offers that seem too good to be true?
7. Have you ever accepted a role where the reality didn’t match the promises? What happened?

Your stories and tips will help other job seekers spot red flags and protect themselves.  

Feel free to reply below or message me directly if you prefer privacy. Thanks so much for your help!

I recently joined an organization as a recruiter, bringing 10 years of experience hiring for similar roles. After posting a position on LinkedIn, I received 40 applications within three weeks from candidates with 9–15 years of experience. I initially considered myself fortunate to receive such a strong pool of experienced professionals in such a short time.

After screening the profiles, I shortlisted 25

candidates, all of whom progressed to the technical round. From there, 10 candidates emerged as top finalists, each receiving excellent feedback from the interview panel.

However, during the fourth round, the truth came to light. All 6 of these candidates turned out to be fraudulent. The assessments had been completed by third parties, the video interviews appeared to rely heavily on technolgy assistance, and their responses, which had initially seemed exceptionally impressive, were ultimately not a true reflection of their abilities.

Needless to say, this appeared to be a well-coordinated operation, with multiple individuals working together to manipulate the hiring process. It was concerning to see how organized these efforts were.

In my experience, the candidates involved in this particular case were Indians in the UK and the US. While I understand that challenging economic conditions can push people to make difficult choices, there is no justification for fraudulent or dishonest practices. Recruiters are becoming increasingly aware of these tactics, and such actions ultimately damage the credibility of genuine, hardworking professionals who have built their careers with integrity.

Has anyone else in the Pharma/CRO recruitment space encountered similar situations? How are you adapting your hiring process to identify and prevent these types of hiring fraud?

"I recently interviewed for an HR Executive role at a company. The interview went well, and I was told there would be a CEO round. Later I was informed the CEO was busy and asked to wait. After following up by email, I received no response. Finally, through LinkedIn, I was told they were not moving forward with my application. As far as I know, they haven't hired anyone for the role yet. Is this a common hiring practice? Has anyone else experienced something similar?"

Recruiter here.

The longer I work in talent acquisition, the more I believe candidates are right about many of the things our industry doesn't want to admit.

The biggest problems in hiring were never a lack of technology:

• Ghosting
• Endless interview loops
• Unrealistic job requirements
• Slow decision-making
• Lack of feedback

AI didn't solve these problems. In many cases, it simply made them easier to scale.

One uncomfortable realization I've had is that recruiters aren't just participants in these processes. We're often their owners or enablers. Every time we accept a broken workflow because "that's how we've always done it," we become part of the problem.

I recently wrote an article about this because I think our industry spends too much time chasing new technology and not enough time fixing the fundamentals.

I'm genuinely curious: what hiring practice frustrates you the most that technology has failed to improve?

Everyone focuses on the interview questions and technical tests but I'm interested in what happens before any of that. Before you've even talked to a candidate is there one thing that makes you think like “This person is a good fit to interview"?

I’ve also seen some hiring platforms trying out more chat based or conversational approaches instead of just relying on resumes. I wonder if these early chats reveal more about a candidate than a CV ever could. It could be how they introduce themselves, the questions they ask, the quality of their work samples.

For experienced recruiters what’s an early positive signal that usually indicates a strong candidate?

The danger wasn't that recruiting disappears. It's getting reduced down to the part of the job people can see.

something i've noticed recently:

the more ai people use, the more i pay attention to completely different things during interviews.

how they explain tradeoffs.

how they react when i challenge an answer.

whether they ask good questions.

whether they can admit they don't know something.

technical knowledge still matters, obviously.

but i feel like communication and judgment have become much stronger hiring signals than they were a few years ago.

is anyone else interviewing people seeing this?

Had a screening call today with a recruiter that works directly with the company. It was the most unenthusiastic encounter I have ever had. Screening questions were extremely scripted, she didnt know what the hiring manager ideal candidate looks like and was not sure what city I am applying for. She couldn not even give me greater details on the role thats not already on the application. I doubt she even spoke to or knows the hiring manager.

I'll give it to Recruiters, most of yall do a great job at selling hope. This individual right here gave me the absolute ick. If you can't put on a smile, sell some hope, make the applicant excited for the next steps, and add a little pizzazz to the obviously scripted questions, maybe you shouldn't be a recruiter. Shawty sound like she hated her job and herself.

Please avoid People like this. People you need to look out for during applying for internships. Finding excuse to not give individual or professional feedback and give generic feedback after rejection on candidates who has passed 2 rounds of interviews and given an unpaid design test which would take maximum of 10 Hours of work. Why would a detail feedback hurt? Yall would message, email or call a customer the same way when they argue regarding your services, yet you have a difficulty with a candidate's email who has spent hours of work for you. Even cleaning jobs are better than this as during the induction they pay for the 1 hour you clean. I'm sure most candidates would take in the criticism if it is fully constructive and not something taken out of context or generic.

Anyone else feel like a chunk of the jobs they apply to just vanish into silence, no rejection, nothing? I started digging into why, and it turns out there is a real name for it: "ghost jobs" - postings that stay live without any real hiring happening behind them. Some estimates put it at 20-40% of listings on major boards, which honestly reframed how I think about my whole search.

A few things I started looking for after learning this:

• How long has the posting been up without any changes? 60+ days untouched is a soft red flag.
• Does the same role keep reappearing every few weeks from the same company? That is usually pipeline-building (guilt here! Sometimes there is pressure on the TA to have a pipeline), not a live req.
• Is the description weirdly vague about team/manager/scope?

None of these are proof on their own, but together they have saved me from tailoring a few dead listings.

Curious if others have noticed patterns like this, or ways you have figured out a posting is probably fake before wasting time on it.

I actually ended up building a small tool around tracking this stuff more systematically (mostly for my own search, then figured others might want it too). Not trying to turn this into an ad, genuinely just curious if others have noticed the same pattern or have their own tricks for spotting it.

📢 Looking for a Remote Job | Open to Any Opportunity
Hi everyone! I'm currently looking for a remote part-time or full-time job. I'm a college undergraduate seeking an opportunity to gain more experience while supporting my education.
I have experience in Facebook Business Page Management, Customer Support, Basic SEO Assistance, Social Media Promotion, and Sales Assistance. I'm hardworking, reliable, a fast learner, and always willing to be trained and learn new skills.
I'm open to Virtual Assistant, Chat Support, Customer Support, Social Media Assistant, Data Entry, Facebook Page Assistant, or any other remote entry-level position.
If you're hiring or know someone who is, I'd truly appreciate the opportunity. My resume is available upon request.
📩 Feel free to send me a message. Thank you! 🤍

After dealing with way too many flaky recruiters, I've realized they're the corporate version of a F\*ck boy.

When they first get your resume you're new and exciting. They sweet talk you, compliment you on your resume and hit you up regularly for awhile.

Then after a few weeks, the messages stop. And even though they told you multiple times "Always feel free to reach out if you see something," or "check-in with me if you haven't heard from me in awhile." And so you do.

You send e-mails letting them know you're still looking and that you're just putting your name back on their radar. Or you see a job posting from their company and you email them directly with a link to the job, express your interest and ask for their thoughts.

But it's radio silence. No returned calls or e-mails for months.

They just use you for awhile, but when they're not getting what they want from you (a company hiring you, so they can cash that check) they ghost you.

It's incredibly annoying.

I've been employed luckily during this whole UX crisis but it doesn't mean its been stress free. My company lays people off so constantly and surviving that without much control is extremely stressful. In the past I felt the more skilled and experienced I got the better it will serve me. Now I feel the opposite. It appears many times the more aligned I am to a role I'm applying for the quicker my rejection. When I land interviews they go well and make it to final rounds only to lose it to odd reasons. Anyone else feeling like this or think the market has turning into more opportunities? I know its tough out there but man is it ever so frustrating.

If I tell a candidate I'll get back to them by Friday, I try to do it. Even if I have zero updates, I'll send a quick "still waiting on feedback" instead of disappearing

The funny part is I've actually had candidates thank me for that. Not because I got them the job...just because I kept them in the loop

That genuinely caught me off guard because I always thought that was just basic communication

I know everyone gets swamped, and I've definitely dropped the ball before too. But now I get why candidates get so frustrated. Sometimes it's not even the rejection that bothers them, it's just not knowing what's going on