I was trying not to defend my point because my previous observation of defending caused a silence in people trying to bring out more points. Well, if you want me to, here I go.
Before starting off, I would like to re-re-iterate the
I am going in sequence on how resumes (usually) appear. Parsing down, the key identifying factors of individuals are:
1) Name, 2) Contact Details 3) Date of birth
Name is static and hence cannot change, but a person intending not to disclose the full name on his resume (NOT an online application, is .... fishy :roll:
Contact details contain a) Phone numbers (residence, mobile, office) b) Email addresses c) Residence Address
Acceptable that people are on the run today and hence providing just the mobile number is fine. But I could be sharing a phone with another unemployed room-mate of mine. Email addresses, I have got 10 or so personally. These two, do not help in associating anyone's identity with anything.
There are non-fakes who follow the above pattern as well, but they tend to fall in the 5% mentioned:
I guess my points about the name, email address and the residence address and date of birth etc. is (evidently/logically) clear.
Your point about absence of address is valid, but the statement [Quote] Moreover, I have observed that if the combination of the above is
present, the chances that the candidate holds fake experience is
almost 95%.
For large scale resume processing systems (or recruitment software), identifying duplicates in the database is done by the points I have mentioned (also, the passport number is considered). For those who intentionally do it, (try to beat the box) software tools are very effective. But recruiters who have to rely on their own methods, these prove helpful to a large extent. (Hence the 5% exception to the rule.)
At times there are those that mention client names as confidential. Those are absolutely acceptable. But providing incomplete, or rather, ambiguous names, well.. I guess the point is clear.
It is for purely left for oneself to understand:
1) Resumes are to market oneself for a job. If a person doesn't pay attention to providing accurate details, you can assume or conclude the sincerity one can expect from employing him/her
2) I still remember exactly the branch I specialized in. If for a PG, for instance MBA, I would definitely not forget mentioning whether I did a dual specialization or a single one, and what the course actually was.
Yes, that is a possibility. But, this was following the points mentioned above. Meaning, for a candidate who has been identified matching the list, the chances that he would say he is busy (assuming that he is actually not employed) is 90%
That part follows the basic questioning which the candidate is most likely to fail. And questions usually pertain to those that the questioner (the recruiter) is comfortable asking and is fully aware of the intricacies pertaining to it.
BTW: I have had many recruiters, who used this as a tool to eliminate candidates, do boardline calls to confirm employment status(s) of candidate(s). And surprisingly(not to me), this has had a 100% accuracy. Since the sampling volume has been in the order of the 50s, I cannot claim a 6 sigma accuracy in it because the recruiters have actually started using this to sideline resumes and not waste time on talking to them.
At the same time, a lot of time is saved from investing time on fakers. I guess hard-core recruiters would agree to the point that losing 1 guy in a bulk of 50 (with 'fake looking' resumes) is more cost (in terms of time and effort) effective than talking to the 49 actual fakes and spending a least of 2 man-hours on processing them.
Any further comments? I was hoping that recruiters would, out of their experiences, add more points to the list.
Anyways, thanks for the post. I am glad this thread is live again!!
Thanks again.
PL&E
vndixit