Interesting debate. The particular positions I'm looking to fill are for a specific skillset in the telecommunications sector. Wanted to address some of the discussion here because I think not all items being discussed are congruent for all fields...
Can't really agree with that. People often post an unrealistic wishlist; very often a particular skillset isn't as critical as they think it is.
Sometimes this is true, although in my particular case, I've emphasized in the job description that I REQUIRE TECHNICAL experience with telephony.
I got a dozen resumes from people who have never seen a phone system before. People who were project managers in construction and software engineering. I'm sure those people are hardworking folks who are good at their fields (given what I saw) but I simply do not have time to work with someone who does not understand the language of the position.
If screener sees something else he likes, he may call the applicant anyway. If that doesn't work with a particular screener, who cares? You end up with the same result, no interview, so there's no downside to gambling.
All the rest I agree with. Personally, though, I think that the interview process is of questionable value...you might as well roll a pair of dice to figure out whom to hire.
Actually, I do have one guy I shortlisted because even though he had SOME telephony, he had some other skillsets that I did like. I had a phone conversation with him and got a good vibe. We will do a second round of phone interviews. But regardless what you feel about the interview process, it's the only way to look for things that will set off alarm bells and determine if you can work with that person. It's like airline interviews: when you get the interview, the airline assumes that you know how to fly. They want to know what kind of personality you have.
With the amount of jobs people are sending out applications to they can't know something about every company. News flash, even though the economy sucks a good candidate is interviewing YOU to find out about your company just as much as you are interviewing them.
Why the hostility?
Interviewing/hiring is a transactional process. There's buying and selling on both sides. The applicant who does some due diligence to learn about the company has the advantage of talking to the interviewer in their own language, and mating their CV to specific needs of the company.You ABSOLUTELY should know something about EVERY company you apply to for exactly these reasons. Another reason for this: if you don't know anything, you look like a shotgunner, which makes you look lazy.
We want an applicant with initiative and the ability to think on their feet. The applicant who takes the time to learn about the company is GOING AFTER the job. The applicant who sits back and displays the attitude of "I don't need to know about you, you need to impress me..." - man, I just don't have the time to impress him. I have other resumes to look at.
True story here: when I was 18, I interviewed for a job with America West at DFW for a ramper job. A couple days before the interview, I went to the library and learned everything I could about AW. The history, the fleet size and types...everything I could find.
In the interview, the VERY FIRST QUESTION he asked me was, "So what do you know about America West?"
I knew a lot. His jaw dropped.
He asked two or three more questions, smiled, and said I had the job.
Unfortunately, they laid people off the following week so I couldn't start. But at least I got the offer.
Due diligence makes a WORLD of difference.
And as far as not sending in a application if you don't meet every requirement, that is just bad advice. Had I fallowed that myself and many others ould probably be unemployed still.
Indeed. But - if the description specifies mandatory experience, and you do not have that, you have just wasted yours and the employer's time. They ask for at least a baseline of requirements for a reason.
Get an email address that is something like: (first name)(last name)@(not gmail, hotmail, yahoomail or sexdungeon.com)
Yahoo, Gmail, MSN and Hotmail are all widely-accepted public email services in my field. I have absolutely no problem with those domains. Your example of fluffybunnykiller is funny, and I'd probably raise an eyebrow about that, but a general first/last name at gmail is definitely not a problem for me. Can't speak to others' positions on that, but in IT/Telecom, it's pretty common.
) Taylor is right on. 
