Getting no feedback sucks. I wrote about this last year [1]. Now Google is somewhat of a special case because it's a highly desirable place to work and very large so you have issues of scale [2].

Sometimes I read posts like this and someone will say "I sent out X hundred resumes" and my response is always "really?". It always strikes me that if that's what you're doing, you're doing something wrong.

Let me explain. I contracted in Australia for some years (where I'm from) and also in the UK (London) for several years. Contracting in London is a soul-destroying experience and there is an industry in dire need of regulation but I digress.

Contracting is possibly the worst and most depressing form of looking for work because you in many ways are at the bottom of the totem pole. You may earn a lot but you pay for that. Companies will generally treat you as replaceable (which you are).

But in the course of much job-seeking I've spoken to many recruiters and some have given me the lowdown on what they do (including the shady practices). But the thing that stuck out the most for me was they all say they can throw out 90-95% of the resumes (CVs actually) they receive within seconds of receiving. This is a combination of them being bad but, more interestingly, the person just isn't suited for the job. Like not even remotely. Basically people take a shotgun approach of applying for everything. If you're a C++ programmer living in Leeds you end up applying for an Oracle DBA position in Reading. I'm not kidding.

I've generally had a reasonable success rate with both getting interviews and getting the job at that point. One reason for this I think is not that I'm some super candidate but that I really target which jobs I go after as being something I'm particularly interested in or something I'm particularly well-suited for.

Part of it too is understanding the process and this varies from place to place.

So in the UK for example you want to deal with only a handful of recruiting agencies. There are many fly-by-night operations who are either harvesting CVs or just hoping to get lucky. Filling one candidate a month can keep a small operation afloat.

So if applying for a job with a bank in London there are three filters you have to make it through:

1. The recruiter. The recruiter may be limited in the number of CVs they can submit (eg 2). Even if they don't submit you they'll often tell you they will, which is why it's important to find one you can trust. Trust but verify;

2. HR. This is in my experience the biggest impediment to filling jobs. HR know nothing about programming so they'll word scan your CV/resume based on buzzwords. So you need to fill your CV with buzzwords, particularly those for the job. This can often mean catering your CV on a per-job basis. Some may not like this because it's more work (which it is) but that's the point: target high-probability jobs. The problem is that a buzzword-filled CV is actually a red flag to anyone technically competent;

3. Hiring Manager: if you make it this far, with UK banks at least, you'll be in a pile of up to 10 CVs generally speaking. Rarely will a hiring manager interview all candidates. They might pick 2-4 they like, screen them by phone and go down to 2-3 onsite interviews. Or they might just interview people until they find someone they like (very common in my experience) so, if you ever have a choice of interview slot, pick the earliest one. Cancel anything else. You can lose a job simply by choosing a slot on the second day and never being seen.

So to return to the issue of feedback: it's even worse with recruiters in the picture. The hiring manager may give feedback to the recruiter (but generally won't; they're too busy). But even if they do the chances of the recruiter passing it along, unless you have a very good relationship with them, is almost zero. At the point you didn't get the job, they lose interest in you until the next job they can shop you for comes up.

Recruitment as it stands now is a disaster but won't really change until companies (who have the money) sign on to changing it. The feedback loop isn't there to inform them of how they're not getting the best result out of this (if they even care). Bear in mind that the person running the team you would potentially work for may be as frustrated by this process as you the candidate are.

Google again is a special case here. We're large enough that we have our own recruiters. I can't imagine how horrid the situation would be if we outsourced recruitment. Of course not everyone can do that but not everyone needs to I guess.

The process here is scrutinized (and criticized) quite a lot so is subject to gaming. So please don't take my comments to mean the process here is perfect. It isn't. But I have a hard time figuring out how it could be done better on the same scale. Every large company will be selective in some way, just to limit the deluge of applicants to manageable levels.

Other commentors have likened recruitment to dating and it's an apt analogy IMHO. A lot of recruitment comes down to chemistry between those doing the hiring and the candidate. If the interviewer likes you then you're in a much better position. So you can be technically well-suited for something but just not a great "culture fit".

There can be luck involved here too. It can depend on who interviews you, other factors (maybe an interviewer is just having a bad day; maybe you are). I think it's important not to dwell on the feedback and rejection for too long. Try and just move on to the next thing.

[1]: http://www.cforcoding.com/2010/07/my-google-interview.html

[2]: http://screamable.com/google-received-over-75000-job-applica...