Launched this week
SiftFirst
Stop drowning in AI resumes, start hiring the right people
30 followers
Stop drowning in AI resumes, start hiring the right people
30 followers
Small businesses now get 200+ applications per role, most AI-generated. SiftFirst ranks candidates against your criteria and quotes the evidence for every score. No signup required to try. You set the rubric, you make the call, you see the reasoning. New this month: an Ask tab to chat with your shortlist, team sharing with interview review, AI-prefilled interview scorecards, and pool analytics.
The no signup trial is great for testing the waters. One thing that would really help: let me bulk paste 20-30 JDs and have SiftFirst suggest a starter rubric I can tweak, instead of building criteria from scratch for each role. Would save a ton of setup time when hiring across multiple departments.
@bulem257022 Really useful, thank you. Good news, two-thirds of that already exists: SiftFirst drafts a starter rubric from a single JD today (paste the role, it suggests the criteria, you tweak the weights), and there is a library of 100+ role templates to start from instead of scratch. The bulk part, 20-30 JDs at once for multi-department hiring, is a genuinely good extension I had not framed that way. Quick question: would you want one shared rubric across similar roles, or a separate suggested one per JD that you then align? That changes how I would build it.
As someone who's hired without any HR help, the 200-applications problem is painfully real. Bookmarking this.
@hannah_lore Thank you, Hannah! The no-HR case is exactly who I built this for, you feel the flood, and you are also the one who has to read every line. Genuine question since you have hired: what is the first thing you look for to tell a real candidate from a polished-but-empty one? That is the signal I am most trying to make visible.
@virko_kask The first thing is whether they engaged with the actual role or just pasted a generic pitch that could've gone to any company. The empty ones are always interchangeable. Can you weight "fit to this specific role" separately from generic strength?
@hannah_lore @hannah_lore That is exactly the design: because you write the criteria for this specific role, fit is not a separate axis, it IS the score. A generically impressive candidate who does not match your must-haves scores lower than a plainer one who nails them. And since every score quotes the resume line, the "could have gone to any company" ones give themselves away, their evidence reads vague or borrowed. Genuine question back: would a "this reads generic" flag be useful to you, or would you rather just see the thin evidence and make the call yourself?
I once spent 1/2 week reading applications for one role, half of them clearly AI-written. If this cuts that to an hour I'm sold. Trying it now.
@varje_sinisalu Half a week, that is exactly the evening-and-weekend tax I built this to kill. Thank you for actually trying it, that means more than any upvote. Once you have run a batch, I would genuinely love the honest verdict: did the ranking match your gut, and did the evidence quotes save you the re-reading? If anything felt off, that is the feedback I most want.