Datapeople Reviews: 4.4/5 — Solid Choice

I really like the recommendations and suggested edits, and the whole gamification of getting to the good "score"! Ability to collaborate and use job posting templates from the library are also great features. I think as we have more JDs saved, this will raise the overall quality of our job postings for the whole company!

The text editor capabilities leave room for improvement (e.g. i couldn't figure out how to create bullet points) and i was hoping for more flexibility in arrangement of the different sections.

Personally, it will make creating JDs much faster as i have my previous postings saved. And obviously the inclusive language is important as we try to scale rapidly in the coming years.

We have been using DataPeople consistently for 3 months now for our job posts. Easy to post jobs using the platform, its great that it provides suggestions for alternate words and great to see the immediate change to the score, how it reacts to the change made

We are still in the process of evaluating the tool so its early yet - so far I haven't seen any downsides yet to state.

Enabling a larger applicant response, attracting more underrepresented candidates as well as bringing consistency in job descriptions. We are yet to evaluate these since we need more data

Language analytics help create better job postings. It provides real-time suggestions on making your job postings more thoughtful, inclusive, and straightforward.

The template system is a little bit difficult to use. I haven't figured out how to create new job postings from a template. I think you need to go to Greenhouse first (or whatever ATS you have) and make them there first.

We have standardized all of our benefits listings for US job postings and cleaned up all our job descriptions to be more inclusive, thoughtful, and straightforward using Datapeople.

The wording advice provided by the tool is very effective at keeping the general tone quite inclusive. It's often very tempting to use working like 'strong leadership', but this can actually deter candidates, especially female candidates. You may still expect this quality, and check for it during your interview process, but it's not a good idea to use this kind of wording in a job ad, where your objective is to attract qualified candidates, rather than overly self-confident candidates... It's also really helpful at keeping your job ads short, and with a clear language, avoiding corporate banalities.

By focusing on a single overal score, it can sometimes force you into avoiding language that you actually really need to use, just to reach the score. Sometimes you really need someone with "great communication"... It would be great to have an option to selectively ignore individual specific suggestions so they don't affect your score...

The main objective was to improve the inclusivity of our job ads wording, and it has been extremely useful for that. Secondly, interest in our jobs has overall improved (though that wasn't a major issue).

I found the guided notes for making edits to improve score helpful.

It is not clear to me how to post role live, or what that means in Datapeople. My workflow is to make edits to get a high enough score, and transfer role description over to ATS where role is posted.

Solving for job descriptions that are confusing, vague, or not inclusive.

It casues you to really proofread the JD and provides suggestions which are ususally spot on.

We use a template that includes our "equal opportunity" verbiage but the tool doesn't recognize that so every post I make gets dinged for not including it casuing the score to drop.

We're trying to create an inclusive environment and increase our talent pool overall. It's hard to say if using the tool as actually accomplished that becasue we have some many other moving parts that it's difficult to pinpoint what's working and what isn't.

Tips for how you can become more appealing to a larger, more diverse candidate pool. I didn't realize some of the language I was using didn't support that. Hoping that I can attract more candidates!!

Some of the words were marked or determined as corporate lingo.. well I do work in a corporation! I am looking for someone with experience navigating a corporate enviroment. Would like to be able to use some of this language without being dinged. Perhsp a "seniority" measure could help? I would expect anyone who is not entry level to be able to understand and navigate corporate lingo

Creating a more diverse and inclusive workforce. Starting with the job description to attract a wealth of different candidates. I love that it's gameified with a scoring system

I like how it highlights what to correct and what looks good. Making a JD looking more approacable and unbiased is key in getting more response of quality candidates.

Adding new fields is confusing. This functionality is very clunky. Also a button that allows us to share a link would be helpful to rather than having to copy the url.

We are solving the problem of low applicant flow and increasing more accurate profiles to our jobs. I think it's tough to evaluate the benefit. For example we posted 2 jobs where we have not gotten very many applicants so how can we diagnose if the suggestions Datapeople made are meeting those goals?

With Datapeople, it is super easy to write efficient Job Descriptions, get instant feedback, and remove unnecessary details. The form is easy to navigate, and errors are easy to correct as you get clear guidance and suggestions.

Sometimes, you disagree with the feedback, so you can not modify the text, making it harder to reach the 80+ grade. It would be great to be able to send review suggestion in specific cases.

In my company, we use it for almost all Job Postings at a certain level. We use a template from hiring managers to start from. It makes it easier for the recruitment team to review and approve JDs, and to have standard postings.

The AI and easy to use functionality. I also love how it makes recommendations.

Sometimes specific job descriptions (like Engineering or Analytics roles) are very gender unfriendly i.e. have language about analytics which can decrease the score. There aren't easy work arounds but am hoping for future enhancements.

Making job descriptions more gender neutral and friendly.

I like that it goes further than to highlight the words and tell you they are more masculine or will turn people away based on a demographic. It tells me what words I can use instead of the one I originally chose which is great.

There is nothing on the platform that I dislike yet.

We are making our job descriptions better and there is now a platform to collaborate with the hiring managers on the jds.

It helps to eliminate too much jargon, clutter, or wordiness in the job postings. Helps it make them more succint while still having enough information for applicants to consider before applying. It also has really good suggestions for replacement words, and how to make the postings more inclusive.

The AI suggestions sometimes suggests removing or changing words that would change the job posting entirely. For example, "Senior Software Engineer" often gets flagged because it has the word "senior" in it, but this is a pretty common term used industry wide to indicate that you are no longer a junior level employee.

In an industry like tech, it's important that all of your job postings are inclusive and written appropriately. With Datapeople, we are trying to eliminate as much bias as possible early on in the process, and that starts from a good job posting. We've noticed an uptick in applications since we have started using Datapeople.

The suggestions to edit phrases that might not be approachable for candidates

Nothing! I think it is a great tool for hiring managers.

I've been able to adjust my job posting to attract more diverse candidates

- appreciate reduction of unnecessary jargon or terminology that is not inclusive - appreciate that there is localization built in (i.e. if I posted a role in London, UK, they will flag grammar/spelling)

- nothing really, I think the product as it stands is useful

- reducing job description length - reducing redundancies - providing third party data to hiring managers and teams

Easy to use, recommendations for editing the job descriptions.

The recommendations can be too limiting.

Creating more inclusive job descriptions. Creating more concise job descriptions.

It's straightforward to use and see where changes could be made

Some of the examples of phrases that are suggested to be changed don't make sense in the context of the role. I need someone who has good attention to detail in the roles I'm hiring for, but that phrase drops my score.

Getting a higher quality job description to the market to attract talent

The tips the software does about the corporate cliches.

Could give more options of relevant synonyms. Could also ignore some keywords separated by commas (seems like a bug).

Job ads seem shorter, cleaner, and including a fresher language.

The application helps my awareness and for inclusivity when creating jab descriptions.

There are times when specific words are necessary but TapRecruit can't recognize this and marks the score lower.

As an ITS organization, we have become better recruiters receiving a wider and more diverse applicants to choose from.

Taprecruit has been a great resource for helping us to edit our job listings. When multiple people add to the creation of a listing, it's hard to make sure that everything has one voice and a nice flow to it. TapRecruit is great for that.

The thing that I dislike is that TapRecruit always tells me my listings are too long! I can't help that we have an extensive benefits package, and wish there was a way to override that without deleting information

TapRecruit has help us have more inclusive language and make sure our listings are on par with those of our competitors. It's helpful to see their salary benchmark suggestions and compare with our internal benchmarking.

I love that TapRecruit helps me see job descriptions in a fresh, new way. There are many subtleties that I previously didn't realize were barriers to getting great talent to apply for a job. Now I feel like I have a new lens in which to approach job descriptions and am able to apply what I've learned through TapRecruit when I'm starting a description from scratch.

The interface feels a bit clunky and dated. I think that it could have a fresher design and more seamless collaboration features, a la google docs.

The biggest problem I feel like I'm solving is having clearer, more straightforward, and more inclusive job descriptions. It's really helped me and my hiring managers focus on what we're really trying to communicate and do it in a way that helps us find the best talent.

I enjoy the score provided for each job description. It becomes almost a game to see how high you can get the score by updating/modifying the position. Also, having the option to review other job postings from similar roles is beneficial when having conversations with hiring managers on ways to increase candidate attraction.

I would like to see additional recommendations added for words/phrases that TapRecruit flags to remove or update.

Increasing diversity from an applicant perspective. We just implemented about a week ago and still transitioning it into our daily work.

TapRecruit is really good for helping you think about how your job descriptions should be structured. It gives recommendations about the length of your title, and body as well as recommendations for phrases and language that will help or hinder your ability to get candidates applying to your role. It integrates well with Greenhouse in my experience and it makes it easy for us to be able to take a quick look at how our job descriptions are performing. This helps us keep everything looking uniform too.

I find that sometimes, the recommendations to get a higher score can be quite stringent and it takes a long time to think through how you want your roles to be written. This can be quite time-consuming. For example, keeping a job title to 6 words or less can be quite tricky, especially if you have a role that needs to call out a team or technology.

We've seen benefits in how uniform our job descriptions look externally. Our jobs also have been vetted for exclusive language via taprecruit which is important. It's a platform that allows us to see all this in one place, and that makes things easier.

I like the call outs in the system that make you aware of bias.

I don't like how some jobs still can't hit high scores due to the needs of the job after edits have been made.

Removing bias and adding inclusive language

How user-friendly and easy it is to use.

Would like there to be more suggestions on replacements (i.e more verbiage/synonyms)

Now have a uniform and unbiased JD

- Good formatting - Good recommendations - Simple and nice layout that helps structure a JD

- I find the 'scores' you have to hit, and the kind of words/phrases which are highlighted as being 'not recommended' are too limiting for what most companies need to write

I think Job Description management is what i find most useful about DataPeople. The Diversity recruitment aspect can be a little limiting due to the bar required to hit the score - which can end up causing the JD to be too vague.

Intelligent application that helps you to optmize your jobavertisements regarding differents variables like understaning, diversity, title ect.. Due that its based on AI, it makes it relly easy and understandable to optimize.

I work in Germany and most of our jobposts we still post in German language. However, the tool is designed and optimized for the English language, which makes it a bit cumbersome to optimize the ads in other languages accordingly.

- perfect length of jobposts - diversity optimized language - better titles - better, more targeted expression - useful hastags --> good starting point to optimize the ads with the hiring managers, because the tool shows you very clearly and well-founded what there is to optimize.

-Inclusive language -Similar UI to Textio

-Some suggestions for hard skills don't make sense (i.e. Microsoft Excel) -Needs more vocabulary or phrase suggestions (Textio had more features) -GH integration was clunky (messed up formatting) so it's easier to just copy and paste and not use the sync feature -When collaborating with Hiring Managers, it's not syncing properly so we have been moving off of DataPeople and making edits to JD on a Google Doc instead -Some Hiring Managers don't like that it shows who the role reports to because they can get a lot of outreach from external agencies

Using inclusive language in JDs

Datapeople provides some great suggestions on how to improve the quality of writing in our job descriptions, and use more inclusive language that will appeal to a wider audience and improve the diversity of our recruitment pipelines. I work in a large team with multiple recruiters, and having some uniformity in our job posts goes a long way in improving employer brand perception. We now have standardised templates that share information on key topics such as our commitment to diversity and inclusion, and company policies and benefits.

The suggested omission of soft skills from the role description (e.g. verbal communication, ability to prioritise, attention to detail) can cause frustration with hiring managers, particularly for project-focused roles for which there aren't many measurable role requirements. Managers often like to include these soft skills to provide a better flavour for what the role will entail.

Improving quality of writing: provides suggestions on how to improve the quality of writing in our job descriptions, and use more inclusive language that will appeal to a wider audience and improve the diversity of our recruitment pipelines. Enabling us to save compliant job descriptions that are standardised across the recruitment function: I work in a large team with multiple recruiters, and having some uniformity in our job posts goes a long way in improving employer brand perception. We now have standardised templates that share information on key topics such as our commitment to diversity and inclusion, and company policies and benefits.

The ease of creating specifications with premade templates makes it easier to focus on the content of the advert. Once defined, datapeople compliant templates are in place it can really smooth out the process.

Sometimes Datapeople will flag some terminology which is specific to roles as not compliant. This then brings down your score so a function to ignore the suggestions would be a useful addition.

Datapeople allows for easy removal of phrases/words that would put people off applying for positions. Often this is useful as it would be difficult without these highlighted to locate them if looking at a block of text.

I think the overall core functions of the product work well. Knowing our postings are more inclusive is reassuring. It's intuitive on how to improve the score of postings, and it doesn't take long to get your posting your target score.

The most common suggestion is that our job postings are too long. However, that is largely due to our diversity statement and including compensation information on the job post. My more recent postings have earned scores in the ~70 range (we require a min. score of 85) but if I delete the two mentioned sections, the score jumps to 90+. Personally, I don't think those sections should count. They're not describing the job per se. It also is frustrating that our score is dinged for not including them.

It tells us how inclusive or to what quality our job postings currently are. Inbound applications usually hold the lowest signal-to-noise ratio so anything we can do to increase their quality is meaningful.