I recently had to hire for two critical positions: an editor and a reporter. I put up the job posts, expected a healthy number of applicants and went about my week.
What I got instead was a sheer deluge of resumes.
At first, I was thrilled. But as I started clicking through the PDFs, the thrill completely disappeared. So many of these resumes looked incredibly polished, yet they were missing the core components I explicitly asked for in the job description. I was staring at a mountain of objectively “good” resumes from people who were subjectively wrong for the jobs.
If you’re reviewing resumes for the first time, accept this upfront: most of what you’re reading is marketing copy. Your job isn’t to be impressed. Your job is to verify.
If you are a manager or a small business owner, you already know the feeling. Your calendar is stacked, you are probably already covering the workload of the empty seat you’re trying to fill and now you have to find an extra eight hours a week to dedicate to potentially hundreds of PDFs.
It’s exhausting. In fact, according to internal data from ZipRecruiter, sifting through applications and resumes is employers’ second most time-consuming recruiting task, only behind actually interviewing candidates.
You cannot afford to read every single resume line for line. If you want to review resumes without losing your mind, and actually find the person who can do the job, you need a brutal but efficient system.
The deluge is real (and AI is making it harder)
Let’s address the elephant in the room. You are not just getting more resumes; you are getting artificially enhanced resumes.
According to a 2024 ZipRecruiter survey of new hires, 66% of job seekers used AI to help with their job search, with 24% using it specifically to write or edit their resumes.
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Actually, two in three employers report they are open to candidates using AI to help write their resumes, cover letters and applications. But it does mean that the baseline of a good-looking resume has skyrocketed.
A perfectly formatted, grammatically flawless resume no longer guarantees a highly competent candidate. It just guarantees they know how to use ChatGPT.
Because of this, you have to cut through the fluff faster. You need to verify if the substance matches the style.
The 6-second scan: What to look for first
When you open a resume, you shouldn’t be reading it top to bottom. You should scan it for exactly six seconds to find the immediate dealbreakers. You are looking for reasons to say “No,” so you can dedicate your actual reading time to the “Yes” pile.
Here is what you look for in those six seconds:
- The location check: Are they in the right location? If your role is on-site and they live 400 miles away with no mention of relocating, that resume just saved you a 30-minute phone call that was going nowhere.
- The non-negotiables: Did they include the required portfolio link? Do they have the mandatory state license? If not, delete. Do not assume they forgot. If they can’t follow instructions on the application, they won’t follow them on the clock.
- Recent relevance: Look at their last two jobs. Do the titles or daily tasks vaguely align with what you need them to do today?
- The “we” vs. “I” problem: Scan the bullet points. If every point says “Helped manage” or “Assisted with,” they were likely the passenger, not the driver. You want to see “Owned,” “Built,” “Executed,” or “Delivered.”
Spotting the copy-paste resume
Not every disqualifier is about missing credentials. Some are about effort, or the complete lack of it.
The copy-paste resume is the most common offender. You can spot it from a mile away because nothing about the resume feels specific to your company or your role. It’s giving “Dear Hiring Manager” energy even if those words never actually appear.
If a candidate couldn’t be bothered to tailor a single line to your job description, imagine the effort they’ll put into the actual work. Move on.
The “three-pile” method
Once you’ve done your initial scan to filter out the noise, you need a physical (or digital) sorting mechanism for the ones that make it to your desk. Do not agonize over borderline candidates. Sort them instantly into three buckets:
- The “Hell Yes” pile: These candidates meet your non-negotiables, show clear career progression, and have specific metrics attached to their past work (e.g., “Grew newsletter revenue by 20%” instead of “Worked on newsletter”).
- The “No” pile: Missing requirements, massive unexplained gaps (note: short gaps or career pivots are fine, but a 5-year gap with zero context is a flag), or obvious mass-apply bots.
- The “Maybe” pile: They have the skills, but maybe lack the exact industry experience. Or they have the experience, but the resume is a bit light on details.
Here is the secret: Only interview the “Maybe” pile if or when your “Hell Yes” pile is entirely empty. Most managers waste weeks trying to talk themselves into a “Maybe.” Don’t do it.
Identifying “green flags” that actually matter
Once you are looking at your shortlist, stop looking for pedigree and start looking for potential. A surprising 72% of employers said they practice skills-based hiring, prioritizing skills over degrees.
To remove your own internal bias, judge every resume against the exact same rubric.
| Skill/Requirement | Why It Matters | What it Looks Like on a Resume |
|---|---|---|
| Adaptability | Things change fast; they can’t panic. | Evidence of lateral moves, navigating mergers, or learning new software fast. |
| Ownership | They fix problems instead of just reporting them. | Bullet points featuring numbers, percentages, and dollar amounts saved/earned. |
| Direct Relevance | They can start doing the work on day one. | Exact software proficiencies or matching daily deliverables listed in past roles. |
You’re better off giving up on the dream of finding that unicorn who checks 100% of your boxes. Find the workhorse who checks the 80% that actually dictates success; then set up a personalized plan to train them on the rest.
When to stop reviewing and start talking
There’s a point of diminishing returns with resume review, and most first-time hiring managers blow right past it.
You’re not looking for the perfect candidate on paper. You’re looking for three to five people worth a conversation.
If you’ve been staring at resumes for more than a few hours and you still can’t narrow it down, the problem might not be the candidates. It might be your job description. Go back and reread it. If your requirements are vague or bloated, you’re going to attract a vague and bloated applicant pool.
This is actually where a tool like ZipRecruiter can be a game-changer. Instead of posting a job and drowning in unfiltered applications, it’s AI matching technology uses billions of data points to match candidates with jobs and finds candidates whose skills and experience actually line up with your criteria and prompts them to apply.
You can even use their screening questions to filter out non-starters before a single resume hits your desk. If you’ve ever wanted an assistant who could read resumes at 3 a.m. and never complain, this is it … basically.
Reviewing resumes is tedious, but it doesn’t have to be the absolute worst. Have a system. Score ruthlessly. Trust your gut less than you think you should, and verify more than feels necessary. Your future team depends on it.
FAQ: Resume screening for people who’ve never done this before
How many resumes should I review before making a hiring decision?
There’s no universal number, but if your job posting was written well and distributed through a platform that actively matches qualified candidates to your role, you should be working with a smaller, stronger pool from the start. Deeply reviewing 10 to 15 solid resumes is more productive than skimming 150 mediocre ones. Quality beats volume every single time.
How can I tell if a resume was written entirely by AI?
Look for language that sounds impressive but says nothing specific. Phrases like “results-driven leader with a proven track record of excellence” are the resume equivalent of a daily horoscope – they sound profound, but they are so vague they could apply to literally anyone. The real test is the interview. Ask them to get specific. If they can’t, chances are AI did the heavy lifting.
What’s the single biggest resume red flag?
A resume that clearly wasn’t written for your job. If someone applied to your marketing coordinator role and their entire resume is about warehouse logistics with no cover letter explaining the pivot, they hit “Quick Apply” on their phone and moved on with their day. So should you.
Should I use screening questions before reviewing resumes?
Yes. Two or three deal-breaker questions, like “Do you hold X certification?” or “Are you available to work Saturdays?” will eliminate unqualified applicants before you even open their resume. It’s the single most efficient filter available.
Is it worth paying for a hiring platform just to screen resumes?
If you value your time, absolutely. Sifting through applications is the second most time-consuming recruiting task for employers, right behind the actual interviews. A platform like ZipRecruiter doesn’t just collect resumes; it uses AI matching to surface the people who actually fit, so you’re reviewing candidates, not noise. They even offer a free trial if you want to test it before committing.
