I value the inclusion of alternative phrasing for terms to enhance their relevance to potential applicants. For instance, specifying "excel (pivot tables and VLookups)" rather than just "excel" provides clearer insight into the Excel skills expected for the role. Moreover, the feature that highlights inclusive language in green is appreciated, as it serves as a positive reminder of the favorable aspects within the job posting.
Rather than proposing the complete removal of unnecessary terms, like "strong organizational skills" or "ability to work in fast-paced environments," it would be beneficial if the suggestions included alternative options or sentence restructuring to maintain the intended meaning. This would help prevent instances where changes to wording disrupt the sentence's coherence. The length of the job description should not include the company description and legal language in the evaluation of its length. These portions should remain unmodifiable. It would be helpful if job titles were exempt from evaluations. Users could have the option to indicate that a job title is not adjustable, thereby preventing any negative impact on their score.
I appreciate the Chrome plug-in for SmartRecruiters, allowing convenient updates without navigating to another site. It also enables us to enhance job descriptions inclusivity and eliminate biases that might deter qualified candidates.
TapRecruit is very easy to use and teaches you a lot about readability and inclusivity in your job descriptions. I love that it provides some additional information about why certain language is recommended or not, and it really has helped us improve our job postings and job descriptions. Anecdotally, we had one position that we filled both this year and last year, before we got TapRecruit and after. Last year we had limited diversity in our talent pool, most notably no female applicants or age diversity. This year, we had about 50% of our candidates, including final candidates who were female and we saw greater diversity across all applicants. It was incredible. TapRecruit has also been great because they have pricing options that are accessible for a smaller organization like us. We looked at a similar software that was basically only built for huge companies and they even knew it, told us too bad we weren't their target audience. So happy we found TapRecruit instead because inclusivity in job postings is important for organizations of all sizes.
Nothing - would recommend this product to anyone, especially smaller organizations looking to make meaningful change in their DE&I recruiting efforts.
We are reducing our use of biased language in job postings and we are making our job postings easier to understand by all audiences. We are seeing more qualified and more diverse applicant pools as a result.
- Ease of use and simple interface - DataPeople is great at making recommendations & suggestions which are easy to implement - Educates Hiring Managers and Leaders on best practises around Job Descriptions
- I don't have any product improvement suggestions, overall happy with the software.
- Ensuring that our Job Descriptions are inclusive, whilst eliminating any ambiguous wording or potential bias. - Standardizing our Job Descriptions to ensure correct introduction and eligilibility statement. - Raising the bar on the quality of our job description, to ensure they are appealing well to the target audience and hence increasing our application pool.
I think Datapeople has a good mission and purpose, I like the idea of using AI to help my teams write better and more equitable job descriptions. The UX /UI is solid and very easy to use
I think Datapeople needs some work on the corrections and suggestions for what to take out. When there is a line in a JD about "analytical skills" or "communication skills," Datapeople tells us that it's too ambiguous and we should remove it. However, there are obviously jobs that truly do require these skills. I understand that the goal is to remove vagueness, but I think there needs to be more clear suggestions of what can be used instead rather than ust saying that we shouldn't use "analytical skills." A positive example of this would be the suggestions for "Excel skills," I like that there are 3 separate suggestions listed of specific Excel skills. That is the kind of suggestion that is truly helpful rather than the ones that just tell us to remove an important skill for the role.
Making job descriptions more clear and more appealing to candidates, especially including underrepresented minority groups. This is really important to me and my company.
Checks for general biases and allows an understandable CTA.
UX is not as intuitive as other tools (e.g. Textio).
See above - helpful to avoid unconscious biases.
I like that TapRecruit provides a concrete "we have to do this" that allows me to get rid of the fluff from job descriptions. Things like "strong communication skills" or "MBA preferred" dramatically lower your score and because we have a requirement to hit a certain score on all of our job descriptions, I can now remove all of these things without any pushback from our hiring managers. It does challenge us to write job descriptions that are more content driven. I do like that it recommends phrasing the job in "you" statements - its more humanizing. I also appreciated the advice that we include the reporting structure in the JDs, though I'm not sure the hiring managers appreciate the increase in people contacting them directly :)
There are limits to what their NLP technology is capable of understanding. There have been many times when the software incorrectly interpreted what was written in a JD, but there is no option to say "this is incorrect" so your score gets dinged over nothing which is frustrating when you are required to hit a certain score in order to post jobs. I also wish that I had more insight into what corrections have what value. I once spent nearly an hour trying to get a JD to meet the required score only to discover that changing our location from "remote" to an exact city would change the score by 20 points. I also don't find the software to be well-suited to executive job descriptions. The program is merciless with what it categorizes as "jargon". This is a problem at the executive-level because we specifically want experienced executives who speak in that language of "strategic", "drives", "leadership", "attainment", "acumen", "cross-functional", "scale", etc. These are all terms that I've been dinged for using. This is how executives speak and refer to their work. Plus, at the leadership level, you are in many cases looking for things that are more intangible because those are the people responsible for making strategic decisions in the business, mentoring early career individuals toward leadership potential, driving projects forward through influence across their peer group, etc. The software is designed to create job descriptions that capture a broad audience which is the opposite of what you are typically looking for in executive roles. I don't want 400 applicants because 95% of them will be wrong. I have not noticed a positive difference in the applicant pool since we started using TapRecruit.
Where I do think the issues I outlined above have value is in crafting job descriptions for more junior roles. TapRecruit forces us to create approachable, inclusive job descriptions which is important when we're looking for early career talent. We are creating more consistent job descriptions with TapRecruit that cover all of the major areas that candidates care about. It has brought standardization to something that was very "free for all" before implementing TapRecruit.
I need to use it from my work place so have been using it but not a big fan.
The language suggested does not keep in mind very niche roles that have to use certain sentence formations and some keywords.
Dont see much value in the changes suggested.