Talk:Applicant tracking system

This is Jacob Gordon, Media and Communications Officer at JobDiva, an Applicant Tracking System. I’ve been attempting make some edits to the Applicant tracking system Wikipedia page. I’d like to more fully explain the nature of the edits I’ve been trying to make.

JobDiva is the only ATS on the market that filters candidates by years of experience based on the resume. Therefore, the following statement in the Wikipedia page -- “In many cases they filter applications automatically based on given criteria such as keywords, skills, former employers, years of experience and schools attended. This has caused many to adapt resume optimization techniques similar to those used in search engine optimization when creating and formatting their résumé" – is potentially misleading. The proximity of the terms “in many cases,” “years of experience,” “skills,” and “resumes” could easily lead the reader to the false conclusion that this filtering ability is shared by many ATSs.

In my attempted edits thus far, I’ve backed up JobDiva’s claim to be the only ATS to filter candidates in this manner with references to JobDiva patents as they are listed on the US Patent Office website.^{[1] [2]} The response I received suggested that I would have to find a reliable source other than the patent office in order to bolster these claims. If I interpret this response correctly, it suggests that other organizations may be using this filtering ability even though we hold patents on it – that is, they are engaging in patent infringement. We’ve gone to court to protect our patents in the past, and I can assure you that if anyone were infringing on our patents, we would be suing them as we speak. We are not aware of any infringement currently taking place. If anyone is aware of any such infringement, please bring it to our attention – you are a witness to a violation of the law.

Finally, I am puzzled by the rejection of the Patent Office references when some of the references currently on this page seem dubious. The page’s first reference, for example, is a link to SmartRecruiters’ home page; it is used to back up the article’s claim that “an ATS is very similar to customer relationship management systems.” Yet the SmartRecruiters home page says nothing about the similarities between ATSs and CRMs. Similarly, the fifth reference bolsters the claim that “the majority of job and resume boards have partnerships with ATS software providers to provide parsing support and ease of data migration from one system to another.” Yet the reference is simply a link to Monster.com’s About page, which says nothing at all about ATSs. It seems to me that our proposed Patent Office references are more solid and reliable than some of the references currently on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobg898 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Jacob, thanks for sharing your concerns and questions here. I reverted your edits primarily because they appear to be drawing exclusively from patent which makes the material original research. In general, we prefer to rely on secondary and tertiary sources because that helps us ensure that the material has been discussed enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. If editors conduct their own original research or rely on primary sources then we don't really know if the statements are accurate much less whether they have been widely discussed.

I'm also quite concerned that you appear to have a conflict of interest in adding this specific material to this article. In cases where a conflict of interest may be present, it's usually best to request that another (neutral) editor make the edit to help us avoid potential COI problems.

Finally, I understand and share your frustration that it seems like your edits are being held to a higher standard than material that is already in the article. That may indeed be the case but for me I can assure you that it's not personal. It's merely a result of my limited time as a volunteer where often the best I can do is help prevent some articles from becoming worse than they already are instead of being able to dedicate the time to clean them up entirely. ElKevbo (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply. However, I remain unpersuaded. It seems to me that the US Patent Office qualifies as a third-party source, and a reliable one at that -- would the US Patent Office website publish false information? A primary source, in this case, would be a reference to our patents on the JobDiva website itself. I'd also reiterate my earlier point about our proposed patent office references being more reliable than several of the references currently on the page.Jacobg898 (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

At least Jacob revealed his COI here... Zezen (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is inbalanced, as it only mentions benefits, but no disadvantages. Best regads.--91.67.145.42 (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned about the references as reference link number two and four link back to software companies who offer applicant tracking systems. I believe these two links may be present to promote the two websites, and may be a form of citation spam. They certainly may have a conflict of interest as they are both software companies that offer either job board posting software or an applicant tracking system.

Panissidi (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm surprised there isn't a section named "Challenges for applicants". There are two main problems: 1) few candidates know that they need to format their resumes to comply with ATS's, and 2) ATS's are like MyMathLab in that minor changes in spacing or capitalization can cause mismatches, but unlike MyMathLab, candidates rarely get feedback about how they need to correct their text (unless they shell out for LinkedIn Premium or the like).

Of course that's WP:OR. But the Wall Street Journal article does cover a few of the downsides:

"Tracking software has its pitfalls. It may miss the most-qualified applicant if that person doesn't game the system by larding his or her résumé with keywords from the job description, according to Mark Mehler, co-founder of consulting firm Career Xroads, which advises companies on staffing.

...

One small error, such as listing the name of a former employer after the years worked there, instead of before, can ruin a great candidate's chances.

'There are some things parsers are just too stupid to figure out,' says Bersin & Associates Chief Executive Josh Bersin. And they do add to job seekers' impression that submitting applications online is largely futile, even after that person customizes a résumé for a job that seems a natural fit."

--Hirsutism (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is necessary to add one additional section. It is necessary to write about modern ATS optimized robots. Such robots as Resumebot have their own algorithm and are able to mimic the algorithm of the ATS system operation in such a way as to predict exactly how the resume should be optimized to ensure that the document will not be discarded by the system. In addition, I support the previously expressed views that it is necessary to highlight not only the advantages, but also the disadvantages of the ATS system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.90.49.236 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)