Datapeople Reviews & Product Details

Job description analysis and scoring makes it easier to see what you can improve

The analysis makes Job description very short

Building good Job descriptions and analyzing them according to the standards

I love that Datapeople suggests phrases/words that can very easily replace those previously used to create more inclusive job posts.

I wish there were not flags for any titles, given these are typically standard for the company and out of our control to alter.

Creating more inclusive and inviting job posts. I have seen a shift in the number of applications I have received in general when I edit my job descriptions with Datapeople (in general, it seems to yield more applications).

Datapeople is an intuitive solution to help your company be more inclusive when creating job descriptions. It provides real-time calibration to you so that as you change your job description, your score changes along the way as well.

I'm not too fond of Datapeople believing their technical spelling is the only correct spelling and that affects your score. JavaScript is not how all technologists spell it - most use javascript, and MVC (while it is an abbreviation) is how most people recognize model - view - controller and should a candidate not know that I would, unfortunately, need to pass on their candidacy. Datapeople simply needs to learn some of the more technical terms and recognize different spelling shouldn't affect your score.

It's been really wonderful to see how changing a few small things makes jobs more inclusive for all. Simple changes can make all the difference and it is really amazing to see that in the applicant pool.

This tool has been great for our organization. It is user-friendly and color coordinates the "flags" for you. As HR, the scoring and feedback on the left have been very helpful for me to educate hiring managers on how we can improve their job descriptions.

At times the word suggestions don't fit the sentence correctly and you need to rewrite the entire bullet. Some standard word choices are flagged, but it doesn't give me a clear reason why. I would love if it gave additional recommendations on the left on how to make the job more inclusive aside from listing benefits.

We are trying to educate our teams the gravity of our choice of language. It has been eye-opening for our employees that see their "before" and "after" job descriptions.

Datapeople is great! It's handy to have an interactive tool that not only highlights elements within the ad but suggests alternates and ways of improving engagement.

The only downside from my point of view is having to download the text file and transfer the copy into my company's job description template.

Datapeople has enabled me to take existing job ads that aren't getting much traction and optimize these. The quality and diversity of candidates have significantly increased since doing so. It's made me realize that our existing job ads had substantial room for improvement.

That it offers suggestions to replace wording

I wouldn't say I like that sometimes the wording suggested can make the sentence not make sense

That sometimes job specifications are too long and that we are making our job adverts more attractive to perspective candidates

I like how Datapeople can help us to find an inclusive job description.

Sometimes the format could be a bit challenging, so you have to paly around with it.

I can show my hiring managers how to write inclusive jd.

I loved the ease to review and change job descriptions I appreciated all the flags for un-inclusive language I liked the interface to create different sections and headers for job descriptions

There wasn't a clear indication as to why particular job descriptions had such different scores compared to others Terms like "verticals" and "cross-functional," and "analytics tools" are standard business terms but were told to be removed to increase my score

The main problem I can solve with Datapeople is getting rid of repetitive and unnecessary language from job descriptions. It's easy to get caught up in wanting to tell a candidate about how you work hard at your company but isn't news to someone looking for a job.

The gamification of improving job description via a score has been really helpful for making our jobs more readable, gender neutral, and inclusive.

I dislike that there are some words and phrases that we need to use in our descriptions that get flagged for minor issues. This has lead to a few of our job scores appearing to be lower than they actually are. Additionally, Taprecruit occasionally will recommend modifiers to our job titles which are meant to be more generic "generalist" SDE postings that are incorrect.

We've solved the problem of our job descriptions being too full of industry jargon and buzz words and have been able to cut the length of our decriptions down significantly to only include important details and more 'you' statements. The benefits have been increased applicant click through rates and an increased job score with our postings.

it is a good way to ensure inclusive language from all angles

i dont feel like some of the items you get "ranked" on in a job posting are necessary. for ex- including #LI-remote or #LI-hybrid

it is providing us with inclusive language for our job postings

Datapeople is very easy to use, and integrates easily into our ATS. It explains the why behind every suggested edit, which is helpful when explaining the tool to other stakeholders too.

It is a little inconvenient that we can only edit outside of the ATS now. Maybe it is something I just don't know is possible, but it would be great to still be able to make changes within the ATS, as sometimes there are a few formatting issues especially when we have multiple posts of the same ad in different locations for example.

Using Datapeople we can make sure our job ads are attracting a more diverse workforce and is free of unconscious bias. I also believe that it might attract more relevant candidates and aid in the pre-selection of less qualified candidates for the role as the job ad will not speak to them as much.

I love that it recommends suggestions for what isn't inclusive in job descriptions. It challenges us to think outside the box!

I hope there are a few more customization options in future when we talk about things like benefits language (it tends to vary on this front). It would be awesome in future to have some folders available for actually filing and organizing our top tier JDs.

Helping us cast a wider net for hiring talent. It's only allowing us to further drive an improved hiring process that isn't stuck in outdated tones and language.

The process was easy and it gave suggestions for fixing the job application. The scoring system for the quality of the application was also helpful.

Sometimes it was unclear as how to improve the score rating for a job application. Also sometimes some of the downrankings were incorrect e.g. "Tell the employee who they are reporting to" but the advert already contained that information.

Helping create a diverse and inclusive job description that helps attract the best candidates. It does this by providing helpful scores and suggestions in the template.

Datapeople has helped our team unlock the full potential of our job postings by helping us take a step back and reevaluate certain verbiage that we might've been deflating into over the years and challenging that with newer and more progressive phrasing.

With that said, it does sometimes seem like the platform is doing too much. For example, it does not like the use of the word via because it might turn people off to the posting. I think job seekers are smarter than the platform is thinking they are.

Our job postings were a bit stale, for lack of a better word, and this tool has helped us refresh them to attract a wide variety of talented job seekers from across different sectors.

The visuals and the concept- the training was very thorough and it is easy to navigate

Sometimes it tells you that some things need to be corrected when it doesn't make sense For e.g.; it tells you to put 'number of years experience required '; however that would be discriminating

to make job adverts more gender neutral and avoid gender bias

Datapeople's language suggestions for my job posts made them easier to read and more inclusive, which led to higher interest levels from candidates. The suggestions also helped me focus on the creating clear criteria to help candidates determine their fit based on their skills and experience.

It is an added step into the process, which makes posting jobs a little longer, but it is worth it based on the results. The integration between Datapeople and Workday takes time, which means I can't create my job posts as soon as a new search is assigned to me.

Datapeople is helping us create more inclusive and concise job descriptions that provide a clear overview of our expectations for the role and the necessary skills required.

able to tell whether the JD is an inclusive one and make suggestions on how we can make it more appealing to candidates

not much at this point. perhaps could provide some reference templates for different jobs/ functions

rewriting JD in a inclusive way

Really easy to use - It gives great suggestions as to what is more inclusive (language) in job descriptions as well as telling you when the JD is too lengthy, or needs more adding to it.

In some instances you are asked to delete certain words or even technology names that are vital for the job description. That can mean not achieving the score without being able to do anything to change

It helps with making our job descriptions a lot more inclusive, which in turn will reach and appeal to more of the job market and ultimately give us a bigger, better pool of candidates

The logic that underpins the platform is sound, with the majority of recommendations making sense and genuinely improving JDs.

I hate the red error messages and the experience of filling placeholders with actual content.

Stops me from writing unnecessarily long JDs; helps me avoid empty or jargon-y language.

Datapeople made it extremely easy to update and modify some stale job descriptions. They helped edit the content in a way that was easy to use and understand while making it approachable to a wider audience. They kept me updated on edits progress to get to a score that was an appropriate measure for publishing.

There were some lines that seemed to auto-correct as I put in specific criteria in some areas. I don't know if that was a feature or a glitch but even after going back a retyping it the same lines seemed to auto-correct out on multiple job posts.

We are looking to hire more diversely, so language that sometimes feels natural to use like corporate jargon and team-specific names is highlighted as non-essential. Hopefully, we will see results from the refreshed JDs soon.