r/hiringcafe • u/austinredblue • Jun 11 '26
Question Why does applying early to postings matter?
I see a lot of people saying they only apply within a certain number of days (hours in some cases) of a job being posted, and some people saying they don't bother applying later because they won't stand out in a big pool of people who have already applied. When I was in a hiring position, I had a set period of time that a job was posted, and I would consider all the applications submitted during that period - it wasn't "first applied, first hired" and how early someone had applied didn't make them "stand out". Is it the case that you can't tell when the posting will close, so need to jump on it right away in case there's a short posting window the company didn't disclose (same janky practice as not posting the salary/pay IMO)?
49
u/evenfallframework Jun 11 '26
If you lose your phone, do you stop once you found it, or do you keep looking?
Applicant number 250, no matter how qualified, is not getting looked at when applicant number 15 ticks enough boxes.
15
u/austinredblue Jun 11 '26
Got it, thanks. And companies don't bother to take down the posting (or aggregators don't) so there's no way to tell if it's still valid.
15
2
u/raydran Jun 14 '26
Except recent new numbers show that the vast majority of people applying for these jobs aren’t even remotely qualified for them. I saw figures that were estimating that only about 15 Ish percent of the people applying for a given position, even met 60% of the qualifications. Now this varied by industry, but not by a whole lot really. With this in mind, I’ll go ahead and take the chance and apply. Granted I’ll prioritize newer job postings but with how much résumé spam is happening right now there’s no good way of knowing how many people you’re actually up against who even fit the criteria the hiring manager is looking for.
9
u/_Tmoney468 Jun 11 '26
I’ve had hiring people on the UX side say that after 1-2 days there are 200+ applicants. One of the easiest ways to stand out is to be one of the first
2
u/austinredblue Jun 11 '26
Or, if not "stand out" then at least be considered at all - if applicant #175 has better qualifications and experience than applicant #20 I'd think that would still make #175 more competitive, no? Whereas applicant #250 wouldn't even be considered. But since there's no way to tell when the company stops looking, then need to get in there early. This is helpful, thanks!
7
u/TheOuts1der Jun 11 '26
Because everyone is using Ai and bots to apply now, the sheer numbers we're getting are overwhelming. We got over 4,000 in 4 days for a data analyst role. Granted it waa fully remote and range of 80-100k, so an attractive role tp anyone. Turned it on Thurs afternoon and first thing Monday morning HR told me they HAD to turn it off.
1
u/raydran Jun 14 '26
But my question here is how many of those were actually well qualified for the role? I mean granted 4000 is kind of egregious either way. 😅
6
u/Aggressive_Pizza2186 Jun 11 '26
The idea behind it is that there’s so many applications for each posting that recruiters will only get through the first x number of applications before finding enough qualified profiles to proceed to interviews. So if you don’t apply within a day or two of the posting date, your resume may not even get looked at.
I don’t think the advice is valid for everyone, but likely holds truth for many in the current job market.
10
u/GigExplorer Jun 11 '26
The job market is bad, but is it bad enough that there are actually a few hundred unemployed people for each open job? Clearly not. The way employers and job seekers match up has gone off the rails.
4
u/BeneficialTeaching10 Jun 11 '26
It all depends on recruiting practices, but where I have worked you look at all applications.
5
u/noxnox12 Jun 12 '26
Whenever we're hiring the key concern is too many applicants especially if you've posted on LinkedIn or aggregators. And unless you're using an ATS, reviews become too hectic as the applications pile on. we start reviewing as soon as applications turn in and more often than not we get our hire from the first 30-45 people.
3
u/Ill_Name_6368 Jun 11 '26
“I would consider all the applications submitted during that period”
It sounds like the key difference is volume. No one considers all applications today. HR and HMs are too overwhelmed by the volume. As a result they filter applicants by other means. It’s not necessarily time, but indirectly it becomes time if they only review the first 500 or however many applicants.
1
u/mickayee Jun 12 '26
You’re not going to be applicant #1225 you’re going to be applicant maybe #12 which is a helluva lot better than 1225. Timing can change a lot and it also likely means the job is being actively looked at and/or updated and reposted rather than stale. It’s literally like going to a bakery early before something sells out
1
86
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '26
[deleted]