Datapeople Reviews: 4.4/5 — Solid Choice

The easy of it. Everything is highlighted and options are given to you so there is no thinking involved to slow the process down.

I always get dinged for not having the location in the title; however our templates have the title, and if I added it, it would be repetitive. There should be a way t shut it off or something.

It helps with the language and ways of stating and not stating things. It also helps ensure you don't forget to put information in a description, such as benefits, vacation, ect.

This helps when writing content with multiple contributors.

The functionality could be expanded, and the rationale is questionable at times.It would be awesome if this was integrated into our ATS and maybe even our outlook.

Standardizing and templating job descriptions and messaging.

language recognition + automated suggestion of wording and phrases that fit better to the candidate pool adressed

not 100% clear when and where the created job ad is posted after finalising it

seamlessly creating new job ads while addressing the right candidate audience using the right language to get their attention

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.

Easy to use and apply when writing job descriptions

Some of the edits the tool suggests seem a bit arbitrary

Writing more inclusive job descriptions

The responsive nature of your team is great, it really sets you apart from others. Our account and the nature of the difference/vastness of our needs as we work many different types of roles and your work with your language team has greatly helped.

The downsides were that many of our technical and IT roles were very difficult to get high scores with but your team is addressing it and we are trying to use the product better.

Datapeople is helping candidates better identify roles they may be a fit for when it comes to openiings wihting our org. I also appreciate how the language used can keep people engaged instead of feeling like they may not qualify, we dont want to miss out on their applications while still wanting it to be a relevent application.

User friendly, "dummy proof, and clean interface

Often times making a lot of different suggested tweaks make minimal or no difference the score when it states that the description is "too long" is not helpful if it is indeed hard requirements - not clear if this means that reducing the content will make a higher score? this is not clear It would be ideal to default to your postings, not everyone else on the recruiting team's, it is more noise to funnel through

D&I in having more inclusive language

feedback on inclusive language and see how others have written in the past

it takes a while to write a job description

inclusivity

Usability - easy to read and format. Only takes a few minutes to begin working through it. I also like the way it explains the suggestions and rationalizes the benefit of being more inclusive.

There is no way to inform the tool that its suggestions are "wrong." Some language cannot be changed without innately changing the description of the role. This is particularly true for very technical roles where some of the languages refers to coding languages, tools, or industry-known acronyms. I wish we could click a button to add certain phrases as a stored database.

I don't personally have enough data to answer this. Its intent is to increase our diversity pipeline by making our language more inclusive. I would need more time to assess the tool to see against previous tools/processes, are we seeing a growth in diversity representation in inbound apps and throughout the hiring process.

That it gives clear suggestions on things to do to improve a job posting's language and length. It also has helpful suggestions along the way as you're editing. It also is publicly shared so other people have access to the job postings as well.

It takes a bit of time to get a handle on the application and how it works. But once you do, it's pretty straightforward. Some of the editing options are a bit clunky but they work.

Making sure that job postings have neutral language that is attractive to as many candidates as possible and doesn't disqualify someone before they even apply which gets us more applicants at the end of the day.

It provides good guardrails for HMs and helps us make more concise job posts.

The formatting is too restrictive and doesn't port over to Lever very well. The whole lever integration is pretty clunky in general. It flags terms as "bad" that are actually important to the job posting. The scoring system can seem arbitrary at times, for example changing one word took my posting from a score in the 70s to the 80s, but that word was part of the team name, so not really something I want to change.

It helps us write more concise job postings.

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.

- reminds me to keep JDs short and sweet - flags language that isn't candidate-inclusive

- some information that the HM and I deem essential to the role is flagged by Datapeople, which drops the score

- promoting inclusive language - JDs are more appealing to a wider range of candidates - better relationships w/ my HM

I used Datapeople to write a job description, and it had some great tips. It was easy to use and helped clarify the job description.

In writing the job description, Datapeople told me lots of phrases and words to avoid, but didn't help me with suggestions for replacements.

Unclear or wordy job descriptions, I think it helped us reach more candidates

The algorithm-based recommendations help choose language and structure for JDs! The specific tips for why it makes sense to change language or phrasing are great for learning!

The interface is a bit clunky. Whenever you hover over sentences, the "ribbon" that shows up can be too big and annoying. It would also be nice to provide a way to leave comments and tag others.

Building clear, approachable JDs; Clarifying to candidates the role expectations and qualifications; Keeping things short; In general, it helps take the guesswork out of JD building and makes me feel confident that the JD is strong!

The best feature I think is the ability to have real time feedback on language.

At times, the site feels slow to load individual job postings and I feel there could be easier ways to concurrently edit multiple descriptions.

Finding qualified candidates is the biggest problem being addressed. With the feedback presented in the UI it is easier to catch issues sooner rather than later.

The interface and the look of the platform

I do work on very niche roles and sometimes the algorithm would bring up that certain skills arent making the job spec strong

N/A

real time assessement of your job description with good insights about what to change and improve

sometimes the choice of terms are not accurate and will not reflect what we want

creating compelling job descriptions

The ease of use. The tool is very easy to use and simple. I upload the JD and it tells me where I need to correct it. We do have hesitations on AI language selections as it feels less "US" when we post but it helps us find the right language.

UI. The UI seems so outdated. We've used Textio in the past and Textio was much friendlier and more interactive. Data People seems like I'm just using a website vs using a tool.

We were focused on trying to get our job descriptions to be more inclusive and gender-neutral. Data people were able to help me identify words/phrases that can tilt that bar. We fixed many of our JD with the help of Data People

The tips on how the sentences could be too wordy. Tips on language that would not be favorable or exclusive

It's very hard to reach a good score This wording" Your job is very likely to underperform" is too harsh and discouraging

Inclusive language People read through the whole JD because they are not too long Specific qualifications which help us attract the right person

It is a simple platform to use and not clunky. It's pretty seamless to copy and paste language in to review in a draft.

Sometimes it can feel like I am nitpicking the tiniest things just to get the score of my job posting up by one or two points.

It's a benefit to our D+I efforts to ensure we are having inclusive language in our postings.

Alternative word and sentence restructuring suggestions

That is only allows for 6 bullet points in the Who you are and What you'll do sections. Often this is not enough to capture the full responsibilities and requirements of the role.

It makes it easier for the hiring managers to write an effective job description.

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 like the suggestions and easy editing. Helps keep my job descriptions consistent.

Advice on job requirements that require strong communication skills - this is always shown as something to remove but every manager looks for this.

Reduce redundancy in the description, being more concise, and keeping the language inclusive.

I like the easy to understand recommendations to improve job description scores, including updated words and phrases.

The current formatting system is painful. Currently paragraphs are segmented into sections, which is fine in TapRecruit, but realistically recruiters are copy/pasting their TapRecruit results into a web form or Google Doc in creating the JD itself. The copy/paste brings over a bunch of odd formatting that is very time consuming to undo. I'd like an easier time getting my TapRecruit draft copied into other places.

I am creating fair and inclusive job descriptions specifically for Production and Engineering teams.

Taprecruit is very user friendly and response time for any of my questions regarding this product are answered quickly. What I find most interesting, is how they score your work. Providing detailed notes and tips on how to improve your Job Description and how it ranks in your area.

Two things I would like to add to this product: the ability for real-time multiple user access and better edit options that allow you to trace back with one click instead of refreshing the whole page.

For the most part, TapRecruit provides real data on what changes our team must make to be more inclusive and allows us to pitch job description changes to our leadership teams with improved edits.

I like to see the parts/points that need my attention and proposals for improvement. Also the bullet points with ideas what else needs to be added (e.g. the diversity statement).

I don't like when it offers only one option and forces me to use it, although it's not correct and it would change what I wanna say. Plus it offers usually the same options and in my job posting, e.g. in the requirements, I do not want to have there "experience" three times. The score "increases", but it looks definitely strange. Some variety is definitely missing.

It offers other view on the JD. For now, I cannot evaluate if this will lead to a more diverse talent pool... time will tell.

That I can copy/duplicate a posting. Easy access and easy to change; I liked the guidelines shared on the side.

I have trouble looking for my own advs. I thought there would be a link "my postings" or similar. There is also no filter in the search to do the same. That was to my surprise.

Easier and better (of higher quality) Job postings

I love the inclusivity scoring aspect. It really helps you to improve on habits, for example using "you'll" more throughout the JD. I also like that you can share your JD and collaboratively work together on the same JD.

The set field titles that you can't change! Some field titles don't make sense for some JDs, or we have that information included in other areas of the JD. I think the templates should be fully customisable, as long as you're hitting the checklist on the left hand side.

It's solving the DEI attraction problems that some companies face. It's helping our JDs be much more inclusive to all different types of people looking at applying for jobs.

I like that it's integrated and there are suggestions to make changes

dislike that most of the suggestions are too generic and don't align to the JD needs, so I end up having to take out important parts of the JD

achieving a higher score for a more inclusive JD