Since I've been grumbling about the huge number of applicants that HR/hiring managers have to deal with whenever they post a job... https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/career/a-recruiter-says-she-s-drowning-in-r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9s-any-time-she-posts-a-job-she-gets-a-tsunami/ar-AA1Kfh6U
That seems like a problem that could be solved by some sort of network of trust. If only there were like a website where people can register, post their resume, make connections, and where connections imparted some level of transitive trust.
Conversation is great, but implied trust through having worked together would be a much stronger signal imo.
Yes, if you have mutual people, who you can ask and they will give you honest feedback. On LinkedIn, if you change job every 3-4 years, and from each company you get 2 positive recommendations, after a decade, you have some 6, 7 recommendations. It is very easy to fake this. I recommend you, you recommend me. Do it with a couple of (ex)colleagues and you have stellar resume. It would be different, if there werenāt 6-7 datapoints, but hundreds, and even better, if fake recommendation would be punished in any way. But for example on LinkedIn, anything else than cheering for others is frowned upon.
Still, such a website is not going to prevent bad candidates from lying in their resumes, faking former jobs at famous companiesā¦
Couldnāt the trust network pre-vet the candidates? Almost to the degree that, if youāre in that trust network, recruiters and hiring managers know youāve been vetted and are going to be more willing to hire from that pool. And, by āpre-vetā I donāt mean hours of coding tests and such but rather the fact that a person interacts with others in that network allows the members, through conversation, to determine whether that person meets a baseline level of knowledge and skill.