Better use of job boards

Greg Wyatt • March 5, 2024

Job boards are often the first port of call when new to a job search.

It’s a natural inclination that they are where vacancies are to be found, quickly followed by disappointment, anxiety and frustration when you get close to 0% hit rate.

And not even a single reply!

But, let’s take a step back, look at the overall picture, and make a plan.

In this article we’ll look at:

  1. A background on job boards

  2. Job board priorities and what these mean for you

  3. Better use of job boards

  4. How to optimise for CV databases

Yes this is long, but it is jam-packed with insight on the recruitment industry, why we are the way we are, and how you can take the right steps forward.


1 / A background on job boards

There are many job boards in the UK who sell their systems to employers and recruitment agencies.

You may be familiar with

  • Indeed

  • Reed

  • CV Library

  • Jobsite / Totaljobs (the same company, owned by Stepstone)

  • Monster (used to be decent many years ago)

  • LinkedIn (yes it is a job board, disguised by being a social media platform)

Aside from generic job boards, there are also many sites specialist to your niche.

Job boards broadly sell two things to their clients - advertising and access to their CV database.

LinkedIn differs in how it is wrapped up with content and networking, but it too has a form of CV database in how we can use the Recruiter Licence to search profiles (you can even make do without).

There are also aggregator websites, which scrape (automatically copy) content from one job board to their own or a 3rd party. You can often tell because when you click apply it takes you to another job board (rather than properly start an application).

Indeed and LinkedIn also act as aggregators and can lead to no end of confusion on whether adverts are still live, or if they were filled in 2022, when adverts are scraped across multiple boards.

True story - CV Library once set up an affiliate arrangement with a recruitment agency that scraped their ads. If you googled Bircham Wyatt Recruitment (that’s me) you’d see that agency list my ads - it looked like I worked for them.

CV Library was good enough to put a stop to this when I unleashed my outrage on LinkedIn (made a post about it and got some influencers involved).

The job board market in the UK is a hot mess.


2/ Job board priorities and what that means for you

Job boards want to sell their services and make money, which is of course entirely sensible.

To support their argument they use all sorts of metrics, such as the number of CVs on their database and the number of applications made (by job or month).

It’s to their advantage that adverts receive as many applications as possible, so their advice on improving advert performance is geared around this. Rather than around suitable candidates.

Indeed, the most effective job adverts have fewer applications and a higher number of suitable candidates - that’s what I aim for in mine.

To maximise the number of applications they do things like scraping, aggregation and affiliate arrangements.

They also offer services like automatic relisting, whereby an advert is (for example) reposted as New once a week throughout the term of the listing (could be up to 6 weeks by default, or longer by choice).

These are sold as benefits to employers, which might help when there are limited candidates, but likely hinders when there are too many candidates for jobs.

They also make it as Easy(Apply) as possible for you to apply to these jobs, so that you can be an additional metric.

As Goodhart says “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”.

The consequence for you as an applicant is twofold.

You are encouraged to be one of the numbers of applicants to purposefully generic adverts you are not the most suitable for.

When you are the most suitable, you are in competition both with people from the line above, and people who are wholly unsuitable (some of whom follow the guru’s advice to ‘shoot your shot’).

We’ll come back to this notion above in the next section.

I should point out I don’t think job boards do this cynically, I think they do this because they think high numbers are best.

It’s also a problem for recruiters who may find it impossible to deal with this volume, unless through automation or by finding ways to manually eliminate applications at scale.

Job boards, employers, agencies and candidates are all wrapped up in this cycle of speed and volume. Most everyone but the job seeker thinks it’s the best way to recruit - it is not.

Though it might be the best way to make money.

And yes jobseekers are accountable too, but only because of how they have been trained to apply.

What do I mean by reducing applications at scale?

Well, as I said to one person today, I’ve heard recruiters rejecting everyone after the 40th applicant, no matter how good they might be, because they have enough for an interview shortlist.

That’s rare, but it’s one of many examples of how shortcuts might be taken to contend with an impossible task. I’m not excusing it - these are companies who signal loudly about candidate experience and the importance of diversity.

Don’t blame recruiters.

Don’t blame employers.

Blame the system we are all part of.

And if you ever find yourself a hiring authority - be the change you hope for now.


3/ Better use of job boards

Let’s go back to that point about applications.

In the current market, it’s not uncommon to see 100 to 4000 applications per vacancy. That’s wild!

Not all job boards show this metric, although LinkedIn does (in a broken sort of way - often they’ll register clicks falsely as applications. This can be when an ATS is involved and is referred to as attrition if full applications are not completed.)

However, rarely are those applications actually candidates (people who can do and should want to do the job).

For a typical job-description templated advert you can expect 90 to 99% of applicants to be wholly unsuitable. I don’t have specific evidence of this, only anecdotes in talking to many recruiters.

Even in my adverts, which I take great care to write, at best I’d expect 40% of applicants to be candidates.

What do I mean by wholly unsuitable?

People who require work permits when a role doesn’t sponsor them.

People who don’t meet the minimum requirements set out in an advert.

People who are clearly unsuitable for this role.

So when you see a number, don’t be disheartened by the number alone.


As a jobseeker, your minimum requirement to apply for a job should be that you can logically prove to yourself, based on the evidence provided (which might be generic twaddle) that you are suitable.

If you can’t, you shouldn’t apply.

You’ll go from an approximately 0% hit rate to… well about the same, but with less time and bother.

This also means avoiding step-down jobs unless you can show how and why being overqualified is a good thing, as well as how and why you are interested beyond wanting a job.

It’s not pleasant having to write this, but the simple truth is, through a transactional application, you will seldom be considered if there are ‘core-fit’ applicants available.

The same goes for transferrable skills.

Unless you can show how your skills apply, how can skilled recruiters see your candidacy?

If not them; how about the less effective recruiters?


If you see adverts you aren’t sure about, by all means apply.

But treat them as transactionally as they are written. Fire, schedule one followup, then forget.

Save your time, energy and focus for non-transactional adverts - the ones that show you how great you are for them, the ones that sing.

These are rare, but we’ve written them carefully with you in mind.

The care taken to write them means we want you to apply because you are an ideal candidate who helps us see your suitability.

Your hit rate will be far higher.

Sadly it will still be close to zero if you are in a specialism for which there are many great candidates and few vacancies. I’ve seen this recently with talent acquisition, HR and marketing.

The state of the market is out of our control.

At least job boards aren't the be all and end all.


When your skills apply, provide evidence.

This is the main case in which tailoring CVs is effective.

If an advert uses synonyms for your skills, and they are proveably the same, use their language. An HR Manager can be a Head of People if the duties are the same.

This post on LinkedIn may help with searchesl

Show common process, common lifecycles, common context (company size, trajectory, culture) - show how you meet their requirement.

These principles allow a human reader to see your candidacy, and allow you to ‘beat the ATS’. Any choice or tool to eliminate you afterwards is a human decision.

Always show how you meet the essential requirements, and the desirable ones too if you can. A perhaps obvious point the majority of applications neglect.


… tips and bits

Finding vacancies is as important as applying for them. Collect those synonyms you’ve been tailoring your CV with and use these in your searches.

If you find an obscure term which represents what you can do, why not search solely on that term?

You might find a horribly written advert whose only correct word is that term.

It’s a trick we use to find candidates too - occasionally I might search on something like ‘egnieer’ because typos don’t make a bad candidate.

Location is a key search criterion.

Most people search from their home address. How about running tight searches where you are prepared to work - e.g. 1 mile from CB4 0WZ (where I worked many moons ago)?

Lastly, try not to let a ‘bad recruitment’ process get in the way of what might be good enough employment. Many of us know not what we do.

Competitive salary. Cover letter. All these unsavoury things - I know great companies who ask for the same.


4/ How to optimise for CV databases

When you apply to a vacancy on a new job board, invariably they will have a CV database tethered to your application.

Maybe it will be hidden in their terms and conditions.

A CV database is an opportunity for you to be found.

Sometimes this will be for vacancies that are never advertised, such as an example I wrote about today.

You have an opportunity to leverage your use of CV databases to improve the amount of inbound enquiries you receive.

  1. Log all the job boards you’ve applied for

  2. Make a list of all that have CV databases, including login in details

  3. Ensure your CV is up-to-date containing the key words for the job you are most suitable for (skills, job titles, memberships, frameworks, tools, processes, everything)

  4. And that your contact details are correct.

  5. Check all the details on your account. Salary details, location, preferences should all be current.

  6. Register your postcode for where you want to be found. If you plan to move to Scunthorpe in April, that should be your current location. It’s where we will look for you.

  7. Update your CV and profiles once a week. It’s a chore but won’t take long. If you are active in the past week, this will show up in recruiter searches. Particularly if, for example in the post I shared above, I only look at active CVs from the past 14 days. This is a mega-hack no one talks about (it’s not a hack, there are no hacks, just bloody hard work, it is true though).


That’s it! I’m sure I’ve forgotten a bunch of stuff that should be included. But this has taken me two hours to write on a Tuesday night. I’ll correct any errors when I can.

DM me on LinkedIn with any questions, or email me at greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk with any questions. I’ll reply when I can and, if appropriate will update this article.

Thank you and good luck.

Greg

p.s. don’t forget to check out my recruitment newsletter, if you recruit at any point or know someone who wants to break the transactional mould - gregwyatt.substack.com.

By Greg Wyatt • November 5, 2026
It's interesting revisiting this article from 3 years ago, especially now AI products are more embedded in market. If anything my view on AI is more polarised, bringing many new opportunites, brand new problems, as well as the existential angst many are talking about. For me, codifying my experience with AI tools means I can help more people, while freeing up my time to do more human work. It's certainly helped with job seeker support, and increasingly so in my recruitment work. Mainly it's giving me more time to talk to people, and when homogenous AI applications at scale are one new problem, as well as the increasing threat of deep fake interviews, in person conversations might be a necessary exnovation (just googled that - what a great word that I will now abuse at scale). While the article below has dated somewhat, I think the threat it assesses has never been more pertinent. I've said for some time that AI might be the death of knowledge and judgement, even so far as 'meaning', something that this recent research also indicates . Importantly the research doesn't say the recommendations were wrong, just how they were followed. Read that article and think about how AI recommendations on applications relate. I've certainly found them more problematic, so far, than the old school ATS style ranking and filtering - because of the false confidence they convey, especially when dealing with non-traditional applications. Things may improve, or so is promised. And while words might be the first facility of LLM, they are still the core facility, given all it does is determine the most probable answer in its outputs (I know I'm being reductive, some of the developments from AI are amazing). Whereas words should be the consequence of thoughts, lead to the development of thought, and distil ideas in a way you can act on. Much like job adverts should be the consequence of effective job analysis, rather than a polished word that lacks meaning. The greatest risk for me in recruitment isn't so much the answers AI offers, but that we become so reliant we forget to ask better questions. I've edited down the previous article, but if you're curious, you can see it here . September 2023 I’d commented about my hearing on a social media post on deafness. ‘Have you looked into these hearing aids - they’re designed to overcome head shadow’, came the impromptu reply from a hearing aid specialist. Head shadow? Not a phrase I’d heard before, despite having no hearing on one side, which effectively creates a sound-free shadow to my right. See, when I had mumps at 18 months it killed the vestibulocochlear nerve in my right ear and damaged the one on the left. But it was my balance that showed the nursery assistants that something was wrong - I kept falling over for no reason. I expect they thought my slow response was normal naughty-boyness. Balance, intermittently poor audio processing, energy required to maintain attention in noisy environments and that bloody tinnitus - all these issues are far more annoying than not being able to hear in one ear. That and not being able to tell where sounds come from. “Over here, Greg!” is the most useless call on a football pitch. And the head shadow thing? Well, it’s never been an issue - I just turn my head when in conversation. It might look like I’m turning to kiss you, but it’s just a conversation I want honest. Sure I miss out on certain audio cues, but it’s rarely an issue. Anyway, curious as I am I looked into the £4,000 hearing aid that solves head shadow by placing a microphone on the deaf ear and projecting it into the the good ear. Quite the brute force tech solution and one I’m sure some benefit from. But the key issue is one of reverb. While the product is good, it would impact the quality of sound in my good ear, which seems a pointless trade-off for me, when my process of life is more effective than shiny tech. It’s ironic that I consider myself highly excitable when it comes to technology developments, yet I’m never an early adopter. Because I always ask myself, other than giddiness, what problems does this solve and how will it enhance my life. And so it is for AI in recruitment, and the shininess of tech in general. They are positioned as solving problems, and indeed they do, but in many cases, it’s the wrong problem that detracts us from the real opportunities for better processes. Simpler administration, speed and scale are clear benefits. And some of these AI-branded automations are excellent. The Star Trek-style auto-translator makes me giddy. As does the sales bot conversation-as-a-human sales video that’s doing the rounds. But AI for writing? What problem does that solve? For me, it depends on what you consider sales to be. Is sales pitching a generic message and hoping someone will bite? Or is sales laying out the facts so that the right person can reach an objective decision? A decision which might mean getting in touch, or changing their view on what needs recruiting. For the former AI writing seems to solve a problem. The words are certainly better, but the message is even worse. Yes: prompting. But if you can prompt the right message, why aren’t you just writing it, so that you embed that knowledge for use across other mediums - conversations, meetings and so on? While AI writing does not meet the requirements for the second type of sales. You can only do this by establishing the right facts from a briefing, consultation or interview. Then interpret this with meaning to the right people so that it creates the right impact. Sales as data visualisation, if you will. And if AI doesn’t work for sales in this way, why would it work for content or marketing? I think the answer depends on whether you value contextual insight or not. Until AI is better at asking questions that create meaningful conversation, it’s a non-starter for me. I say until because this hesitation will be moot in the next year or so. Because it isn’t what AI is now that’s the opportunity - it’s what’s coming soon. I can’t wait to see what’s next. Until then, AI, for writing, is a question of in one ear and out of the other. Which, if you’re deaf in the one, is quite the problem. Go learn copywriting instead, and listen to how it transforms your approach to recruitment. Then layer tech on top, when it’s ready. Thanks for reading. Regards, Greg p.s. If you like good recruitment and you need help with it in the UK, drop me a line. DM on LinkedIn, email greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk , whichever you prefer.
By Greg Wyatt • November 4, 2026
If you ever thought 'outcome-led' was a pretentious headline for a recruiter, it's also how you should think about your job search. Welcome to the 50th edition of Jobseeker Basics. As well as sharing advice that - hopefully - helps you navigate our mercurial jobs market more easily, there's always been a separate utility to these newsletters. I use them to update chapters in A Career Breakdown Kit , so that I can ensure it is always as current as possible. People who've bought the Kindle edition will get an automatic update when the 2027 edition is released in January/February. Paperback owners are invited to contact me for a free digital update. For this newsletter, I've tightened some of the language around accepting job offers - pretty boring update, but maybe necessary for fringe cases. I often talk about outcome-led recruitment. While it might sound pretentious there's a simple reason, which underpins everything I do. Begin with the ending, work back and find the right path. In recruitment this means flashing forward 12 months. What did a successful hire look like? What problems did they solve? What separated excellent from good from adequate from inadequate? What were the outcomes you needed for it to have been a successful hire? Nail these points down and you work backwards. What good actually looks like in viable candidate profiles. What needs to be communicated to them to encourage them to take a step forwards. How we find them - whether in a headhunt, an advert, networking or other. I also talk a lot about why a job search should be the inverse of how that vacancy might be filled. And so it is that the outcome you want in your job search should inform your strategy to find that job. Ironically, On Job Offers is Chapter 31 in A Career Breakdown Kit, slap bang in the middle of the book on page 162. With good reason, given you may find yourself needing to look for work again in future, sometimes by choice and sometimes by the other. All the more reason to have a strategy you can replicate and improve on, time and time again: 31 - On job offers At some point you’re going to get a job offer. It’s helpful to be clear on what this should look like at the start of your job search. Because, if you don’t know your destination, how can you be sure which path to take? Here are the main points to consider. Identity At the start of any job search, remind yourself of your career identity. This may be at the point of an unexpected redundancy, when you’ve decided your current job is no longer right, or if a recruiter contacts you out of the blue with a compelling proposition. Try this once a year, even when gainfully employed, because it’s easy for the path of employment to diverge from where you want your career to go. What is your current context, personally, with family, in life? What do you need and how does work reflect this? What are your core values? The ones that underpin who you are and who you want to see in the mirror. How does work reflect this? What are the things you enjoy, are neutral about, or dislike in your career? What does this look like in your current job? How has your employer changed in the past year? How has the world changed? How does this reflect you as a person? Who do you want to be as a person, family member, friend and peer? What impact do you want to make? How much do you need to earn and by when? These answers aren’t fixed and can change quickly with a change in circumstance, as you change over time, or for reasons out of your control. Clarify what you want and what you need, and therefore what this looks like in your next job. This identity informs your job search strategy, part of which is the roles you go for, part of which is the approach you take, and part of which is what an acceptable job offer is. Total compensation & opportunity cost It's common to see salary as the most important factor in a job offer negotiation. It's better to look at negotiating total compensation and opportunity cost. Total compensation is the overall financial value of a role. It includes: Salary Pension contribution Bonus Commission Car allowance RSUs Some benefits are salary sacrificed or tax efficient - their value goes beyond what they appear on paper. A great pension scheme will save you 20% or 40% on tax payments in the UK across the salary invested. It might even, at a higher salary level, improve access to child benefits. On the other hand, opportunity cost is the consequence of taking an offer, compared to what you might have if you stayed. For example: Moving to a three-day hybrid, compared to full remote. What's the cost of mileage or time commuting? What's the cost of heating your home when fully remote? Or - a role that offers more money now, with no progression in future. Compared to a role that pays less now, and will leapfrog in future, while giving you skills that support career growth. Are these contractual and likely to happen, or are they empty promises? Look for evidence such as a track record with other employees. It's entirely possible to accept an offer with a higher salary and find yourself worse off with take home pay. Establish all the financial implications of an offer. Impact Impact goes both ways. The impact you can have in your new role, and the impact your new role will have on you. A high paying job that takes you away from a young family might be a solution or a problem. A brilliant job that’s an unsustainable commute won’t work long term. Does that matter to you? A well paid job that gives you a good balance at home yet will only be a cog in a machine - a dream for some, unfulfilling for others. Impact also includes trajectory. Are you someone who wants to do the same job over time, in a structured way? Someone who wants regular advancement and career development? Both, and others are fine. Make sure you know what you are getting yourself into. Culture & People It’s at least partly true that people leave bosses, not jobs. While decent people can become bad bosses for various reasons, some of which relate to the environment they manage within. The problem is that people are on their best behaviour in interview processes, while culture as it’s pitched doesn’t always reflect the culture experienced. The interview process should be there for you to gather facts as much as possible. Do your research to get a sense of a company’s values, principles, how it treats its people, and all those other elements that will affect a career with them. This is research to be done at interview stage or before. Ikigai (with a little i) A wonderful Japanese concept. In its original form it means ‘what you get out of bed for’ or ‘those small moments we take pleasure in.’ Rather than the westernised Venn Purpose Diagram many are familiar with as Ikigai (with a big I). If you ask people in Japan what they think of Ikigai they may well say something along the lines of ‘huuunnhh?’ ikigai is a helpful principle when considering a job offer. It’s those qualities unique to you (often defined by your career identity) that you take pleasure in, while others around you may not get it. Sometimes this is gut instinct. Important to listen to, important to challenge. It’s at least part of your decision in a job offer. Even if everything else might be just alright, ikigai in your offered job might be good reason to take it. Or it might be the company’s purpose and what they are doing to improve the world. ikigai is unique to you and it makes everything better if you can find it. Those are the key points to look at if given a job offer. There’s no right or wrong, only right for you and the people you support. Negotiating salary There are a lot of moving parts in any salary negotiation, both at your end and with the employer. There are two main elements. The first is your place in the market - do what you can to find the range of fair pay available to you right now. The second is compensation philosophy - how do companies reach an offer? Both come down to asking questions and research. Assume nothing. I would err on the side of boldness in a salary negotiation. At final interview stage, I’d ask for the top end, based on what I’ve learnt - if they see me as the best candidate, why wouldn’t I? If they offer a little lower than I expect, I’d be positive about it and ask what else they can do to improve their offer. It’s unlikely you’ll lose out on an offer by being clear and respectful. If you want to drill deep into negotiations, I recommend reading Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss. His advice on deep listening, calibrated questions and price anchors are directly relevant to salary negotiation. Negotiating is highly contextual, so you should be careful if following opinion-led advice on what works for that individual. After the offer As with a salary negotiation, the post offer process and run up to employment is different from employer to employer. You can indicate that you're happy to proceed and ask the employer to issue the formal paperwork. Be aware that accepting an offer, even verbally, can create a legally binding contract. If you're not ready to commit, make that clear and reserve your formal acceptance until you've reviewed the written terms. In practice, the legal risk of withdrawing before starting is generally low. Most employers will have little commercial interest in pursuing someone who no longer wishes to join, particularly where they have suffered no demonstrable loss. However, contractual obligations and reputational consequences are worth considering. Treat the Offer Letter as a formal proof of your new employer’s offer of employment. If something isn’t right with the Letter, ask the employer for clarification. Once you've accepted the offer, signed and returned the letter, and any conditions have been satisfied, you can resign and agree a start date with your new employer. Aim to understand their onboarding process. Is there anything helpful you can do before your start date? Make sure you know when, where and any arrival instructions for your first day. As for your wider job search - you should withdraw from other applications when you formally accept an offer. It’s your choice whether you keep your cards close to your chest, accepting a suitable offer with the prospect of something better coming up. You can cross that bridge if you come to it. While this is not something I recommend, a tough job search is as good a time as any to look after number one.