Datapeople Reviews: 4.4/5 — Solid Choice

I really like how it is so easy to use and it makes my job a lot easier

So far, I have not experienced any negative feedback while using this

This really helps out with LinkedIn and the data that I'm using

We like the scoring Mechanics and suggestions.

Datapeople doesn't talk nicely to our HR system.

Cleaning Up Job Descriptions

Being able to fine-tune the language used

The lack of seamless integration with our ATS

Being more transparent and direct with our expectations

Real-time feedback instead of having to A/B test and guess where to improve. Having suggestions on what language to change is helpful.

Sometimes there are a couple of bugs, but the team are quick to resolve them or work through them with us. The thing I disliked most has been altered already - which was the inability to see your own JD with a recommended one side-by-side.

Ensuring we're doing what we can to reduce unconscious bias. It's also helpful for our candidates and employees to know that we're doing what we can at the point of entry to reduce bias and open the door to all types of candidates.

Provided word recommendations and useful tips

Sometimes it cuts too much description out

Creating a more inclusive candidate pool

Keeping it short and simple. Candidates rarely need a laundry list of responsibilities. I see the JD as a tool for advertising the role to potential candidates rather than as an exhaustive list of roles and responsibilities. In that light, one might be able to boil down the responsibilities to just 3-5 bullets that sell the role a little more and datapeople helps you cut the fluff, use language that speaks to the candidate, strong action verbs, etc.

I would love to distinguish qualifications from knowledge and skills required for the role. An additional section for knowledge and skills would be great. I think title recommendations can be crowd sourced using some algorithm to recommend titles that best match real world applications.

Most JDs I have written on datapeople pull in the a relatively higher number of potential candidates for the role versus traditional JDs. I also get to standardize and harmonize multiple JDs across countries of operation. Our DEI commitments are also adequately reflected in the JDs.

The subsititute words provided and insight into readability by using better wording.

The job length range is pretty unreasonable for high level roles

- readability - DEIB

the real-time feedback in the job description helps us use more inclusive language and remove language that would keep someone from applying. The gamification is extra fun for hiring managers and they get competitive in a fun way to get the best scores.

There are certain words that we cannot change and it doesn't allow for us to highlight them to Datapeople to potentially include in the approved list.

Increasing the quality of applications and improving the communication between hiring managers and recruiters.

It helped me make the JDs short, neat, and straight to the point.

I was unable to capture the reasons why some specific words were not good/recommended to use!

Ensure the JD is written to attract the best talents that fit the role.

Its an actual tool you can use to improve your ability to bring diverse voices into your company. So much of DEI is hit or miss, but Datapeople is always a hit

The tool is still a little wonky - the text blocks are hard to move around and delete.

I have worked a fair amount with executives from traditional companies who write super jargony job listings and its helpful to use Datapeople to show them why this is no longer a great way to go about writing listings

The Datapeople recommendations are tremendous as they help you build inclusive descriptions that bring in the right mixture of people to interview.

I find it challenging to find the job descriptions that I've created in the past.

It helps to create friendly job descriptions, which generally were intimidating and overwhelming in the past.

Feedback from the application while setting up the job description

To get 100% mark, the job description must be very simple and short, and the only way to do that is to omit relevant information. The balance between a short JD and an efficient JD should be tweaked.

Create compelling and inclusive JDs. Clear hiring process and good candidates that fit the role profile. Faster hiring process.

-It's straightforward to use. With some clicks, you can find what works and doesn't work publishing a job. - Integration with the ATS (lever) is quick and easy. - It gives really nice alternatives when wording job requirements.

- Sometimes, the suggestions that Datapeople provides don't fit into the context. - Some rare times, some words are flagged without apparent reason and much context.

Data people is helping me build better and more inclusive job postings. It helps identify the best wording so we can reach more people. It made me realize that there is always room for improvement when talking about inclusivity.

I love the mission, the focus on inclusivity. and keeping things short, simple, and to the point. It's helped me craft better job descriptions with hiring managers who haven't been focused on these things in the past.

Nothing significant that jumps to mind. It might be helpful if perhaps some basic job titles could have specific tips for things to mention, rather than it being a basic guide for job descriptions.

See above. It helps with crafting inclusive job descriptions and has made our company more approachable, more inclusive, and has created a consistent template for us to be uniform in how we advertise our jobs.

The suggestions are great. Of course, every candidate would want to know who they may report to.

I can get a bit distracted by the various colors.

Job descriptions can quickly get lengthy, especially when it comes to describing the ideal candidate. Datapeople has allowed me to ensure that the most relevant content is presented and that it looks good on a mobile device.

I love how quickly datapeople syncs to out ATS (greenhouse). I also really like how user-friendly the tool is

There is nothing really top of mind - there are a few suggested edits to title / years of experience that I often times do not change (and would be curious to get more info behind the suggestions) but overall great tool.

Increase diversity/inclusion in our job descriptions -- relatively new with the tool so no immediate data but excited to continue to leverage it

The ease of being able to make changes to jobs.

This is less of what I dislike and more of what would be nice to have. It would be nice to be able to offer words/phrases to help begin a new order.

Making roles more inclusive has been great, giving examples of optional words to help with that.

Inclusivity, the performance of job overall.

It's missing if the job is too feminine or masculine and if the ad will perform based on location.

None

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.

I love the real-time feedback I get when improving our job descriptions. The tool is user-friendly and integrates with our ATS Greenhouse, and includes metrics and reporting.

Sometimes the tool suggests using words that mean something entirely different. There are certain words that we need to have in our job specs, but Datapeople knocks off points based on that language which impacts the score. Some standard word choices are flagged, but it doesn't give me an apparent reason why.

Making the job descriptions more inclusive.

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.

The UI is really easy to work with and the suggestions do a good job of briefly describing the "why" behind replacing a certain word or phrase.

There are some suggestions that mean something entirely different. For instance when I write a job description that includes "facilitate meetings" the suggestion is "plan". I understand this has less jargon, but it means something entirely different from a skillset requirement.

Ensure a broader pool of candidates and inadvertently limit the field due to missing or ineffective language in a job description.

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.

Integrates with our ATS (Workday); provides effective guidance to ensure we create the most engaging and inclusive job postings. "Gamifies" the job writing process for both recruiters and hiring managers, creating heightened engagement levels

Metrics reporting could be improved; the salary guidance isn't accurate (for our roles, at least). Would be good for the tool to compare our job posting with other similar & high-scoring job postings so we can also learn through others (e.g. content being shared with prospective candidates)

We wanted to ensure that our job postings attract more qualified and diverse applicants. We assessed TapRecruit and a couple of other competitors and like that TapRecruit is looking at the entire job posting, not just the words. Hiring Managers are engaged in the process when using TapRecruit as they can see the score increasing as they make positive changes & benefit to their job postings

I like that TapRecruit integrates with ATSs and that it is really easy to make the recommended changes. You can click on the suggestions and it'll update automatically instead of having to manually type or delete things.

It is a bit annoying that TapRecruit has divided things into sections now. It makes it very difficult to copy and paste an entire job description from a google doc into TapRecruit. I have to constantly switch back and forth to copy each section.

It's given me good ammunition to be able to share with hiring managers that requirements like "good attention to detail" or "strong problem solving skills" aren't really helpful when it comes to crafting job descriptions. It also helps managers think about how they communicate things.