These 'lying on your cv' articles.

**gingerjedi** · 4 February 2010, 23:37

YES!

The client, on the other hand, is often using strict criteria to filter CVs. In so doing, they may well be missing some great candidates, just because they don't have this or that version of software or experience in that industry. Clients can be short-sighted in that respect.

I missed out on a great gig from lack of some specific VMware experience, since playing with it I'd be happy to say I'm now familiar which may have at least got me in front of the client.

I've had similar situations with service management software which effectively all do the same thing, you just can't get the CV on the table unless you're 100% these days.

My fear of being caught short has most certainly held me back over the years.

**HairyArsedBloke** · 5 February 2010, 00:11

I was talking early last year with some pals and we came to the conclusion that most of the problem is not with the client but with the recruiter.

They want to present themselves to the end client as offering the best candidates. So they impose very strict criteria i.e. they will introduce things or make ‘oh that would be nice too, but unimportant’ into strict must haves.

On the other hand, the candidates have to embellish their CV’s to have any chance of getting through the gate keepers and run the risk of being called a fraud.

In the end the client gets a very limited supply of candidates and complains ‘we have trouble finding staff’.

It all reinforced my belief that I am very glad to get out of the business.

**threaded** · 5 February 2010, 05:24

Originally posted by BolshieBastard View Post

http://www.contractoruk.com/004733.html

As this article states, the problem would virtually disappear if clients and agents stopped issuing a 30 odd item wish list of skills needed for roles.

Wouldnt it?

I had an agent call me about a gig. I was the only candidate on their database that had all the skills.

Many of the others were a close match, but none of those had 'eclipse' and 'toad'.

WTF???

So remember, get all them buzzwords down, no matter how trivial.

**northernladuk** · 5 February 2010, 07:22

Originally posted by BolshieBastard View Post

http://www.contractoruk.com/004733.html

As this article states, the problem would virtually disappear if clients and agents stopped issuing a 30 odd item wish list of skills needed for roles.

Wouldnt it?

I agree, if they wrote a list of requirements that was actually humanely possible to get then they might have a chance of getting a reasonable candidate.

I remember loosing a contract to that had a requirement to have had 5 years in each...

Networks Routing/Firewalls
Unix
Wintel
SQL/VBA
Project Management Experience
Solid Service Delivery
Testing..

I was like... WTF!! I would have to be nearly 60 for a start and most of the technology is a career path in it's own right. There was no way in hell you could know enough about ALL to drop in to. I made it clear I had solid demostrated experience in 5. Lost the gig to a guy that matched the all the criteria

First thing that came to mind was 'lying bastard'

if they did ask stupid requirements there wouldn't get CV's they arn't worth the paper they are written on.

As always the good honest guy looses.

**Tarquin Farquhar** · 5 February 2010, 07:50

Originally posted by threaded View Post

I had an agent call me about a gig. I was the only candidate on their database that had all the skills.

Many of the others were a close match, but none of those had 'eclipse' and 'toad'.

WTF???

So remember, get all them buzzwords down, no matter how trivial.

The big "F" in that WTF is well deserved.

A better requirement woud be something like "don't care if you've used toad but want somebody who, if they haven't used it, will be running queries on it within 5 minutes of install, and within 20 minutes with the help file will be able to do some basic performance tuning, because they do know SQL and how a RDBMS works".

And you're spot-on, get all the buzzwords in (though some agents, probably with limited reading ability, will complain that your CV is too long). You can lose contracts for not having mentioned something that you see not so much as a skill, more a part of the grammar; not a "skill" but just one of the thousands of little things that you know, that gets your work done.

The problem is the CV, or rather the CV-driven way of doing things. Or to be blunt, the problem is agents who don't know what the words on the CV mean, and how the job is done. A large proportion of them, I'd guess.

**EddieNambulous** · 5 February 2010, 08:02

Originally posted by threaded View Post

I had an agent call me about a gig. I was the only candidate on their database that had all the skills.

Many of the others were a close match, but none of those had 'eclipse' and 'toad'.

WTF???

So remember, get all them buzzwords down, no matter how trivial.

Yeah, I had a similar accidental experience and now include *all* the buzzwords I can (within reason). And, surprisingly (and sadly), it does seem to make a difference.

**doodab** · 5 February 2010, 08:11

A year or so back I applied for a role that expected 2 years experience of a product that had only been in existence for 6 months.

The agent wasn't receptive when I pointed out that he was unlikely to find anyone who could tick that particular box.

**northernladuk** · 5 February 2010, 08:21

Originally posted by EddieNambulous View Post

Yeah, I had a similar accidental experience and now include *all* the buzzwords I can (within reason). And, surprisingly (and sadly), it does seem to make a difference.

Unfortuantely the conversation seems to have come circle to the extent you are kind of making Bolshie's point or at least exacerbating the situation.

You put ALL buzzwords down, CV gets to client/agent, he looks at it and thinks 'lying bastard' and bins it. Even if it is within what you would call reason. Going back to the basics of CV selection you scan them all first and make an instant snap descision and if it looks unbelievable or too diluted it gets scrapped.

Believe me I have been in same situation on both sides of the fence and I don't have a clue what the answer is but just pointing out what I think of certain situations. I strongly believe putting ALL buzzwords in is fail even though it seems we are now almost being forced to by less scrupulous people that do.

**downsouth** · 5 February 2010, 09:41

But if you dont put all buzzwords in your never in with a shout to start with. If the CV actually gets to the client they can see throughout your career if your lying or not.

How many pimps actually know anything about the platforms, skills required and difference between products that actually do the same thing just called something else.

I've recruited for several positions and know that crap thats gets sent in for client review, dont take long to tally up the skills set with the roles performed to see who's bending the truth.

Some CV's i've seen resemble IBM Manuals to grab the attention but no commercial experience of the products to be seen anywhere on the CV.

I do agree that not 1 person can have every skill required the client has suggested is ness, so who can hand on heart say they know a skill/product inside out, I know I cant

These 'lying on your cv' articles.