How to Use Resume Screening Data to Improve Job Descriptions

Here's the problem nobody talks about: most companies write job descriptions once, post them everywhere, and never look back—even when screening data screams that the JD is broken. 88% of employers believe their ATS systems are screening out highly qualified candidates because resumes lack keywords that match poorly written job descriptions. 75% of resumes get automatically rejected before a human ever sees them. 83% of recruiters say they're more likely to hire candidates who tailor resumes to job descriptions—but 54% of candidates don't bother because the JD is too vague to understand what actually matters. Applications-per-hire have jumped 182% since 2021, meaning you're drowning in applicants. But the applicant-to-interview conversion rate dropped to just 3%—you're interviewing 3 people out of every 100 who apply. Why? Bad job descriptions attract the wrong people and confuse the right ones. Resume screening data reveals exactly what's broken: which requirements accidentally filter out qualified candidates, which keywords actually correlate with good hires, where strong applicants drop off in your process. Companies using screening data to rewrite job descriptions saw applicant quality improve by 35%+ and screening time cut in half. Here's how to use your resume data to write job descriptions that attract qualified candidates and repel unqualified ones.

Why do most job descriptions fail to attract the right candidates?

Because they're written based on what you think the role needs—not what data shows actually predicts success.

Common job description problems revealed by screening data:

Keyword mismatch: Your JD says "customer success specialist" but qualified candidates call themselves "account managers" or "client success coordinators." 98% of large organizations use ATS systems that auto-filter by keywords. If your JD uses different terminology than candidates use on resumes, qualified people get rejected automatically. Screening data shows you which job titles and skill names actually appear on resumes of people you want to interview.

Requirement inflation: "5+ years experience required" filters out 60% of applicants—including people you end up hiring anyway after the pipeline dries up. Screening data reveals which requirements you actually enforce vs. which you ignore. If you're regularly interviewing candidates with 3 years experience for a "5+ years required" role, your JD is lying to candidates and shrinking your pipeline unnecessarily.

Vague skill descriptions: "Strong communication skills" appears in 90% of job descriptions. It means nothing. What actually matters? Screening data from your best hires might show: experience presenting to executives, written documentation samples, cross-functional collaboration. Specific skills attract qualified candidates; generic fluff attracts everyone (which means screening 250 applicants to find 4-6 worth interviewing—the current average).

Missing deal-breakers: Your top reason for rejecting candidates is "no experience with Salesforce"—but Salesforce doesn't appear in your job description. Candidates waste time applying. You waste time screening them. Screening rejection data shows which skills are actual must-haves. Put them in the JD prominently so unqualified candidates self-select out.

Overemphasis on credentials vs. skills: Your JD requires a Bachelor's degree, but screening data shows your best performers have certifications or bootcamp training instead. 90% of companies using skills-based hiring report better candidate quality. Credential requirements that don't predict performance shrink your pipeline and introduce bias without improving quality.

Bottom line: If you're screening 180 resumes per hire (the 2024 average) but only interviewing 3%, your job description is broken. Use screening data to fix it.

What screening metrics reveal problems with your job description?

These data points tell you exactly where your JD is failing.

Application completion rate: If 1,000 people start your application but only 300 finish, your job description (or application process) is scaring people away. Low completion rates signal: the role requirements seem unrealistic, the application is too long or asks for unnecessary information, or compensation/benefits aren't clear enough to justify the effort. Benchmark: Completion rates above 60% are strong; below 40% means something's wrong.

Applicant-to-screen-pass ratio: You get 200 applications, but only 10 pass initial screening. Either your JD is attracting unqualified candidates (too vague, wrong keywords, unrealistic salary expectations), or your screening criteria don't match your JD (you're asking for X but rejecting people who have X because you actually need Y). Benchmark: If fewer than 10% of applicants pass screening, your JD needs rewriting.

Screen-to-interview conversion: Currently 8.4% industry average, down from 12% a decade ago. If your rate is below 5%, you're either screening too conservatively (raising the bar after seeing the applicant pool) or your JD attracted the wrong people. If it's above 15%, your JD might be too restrictive—you're getting fewer applicants but higher quality. That's good unless your pipeline is too small to fill roles on time.

Interview-to-hire ratio: Industry average is 27% (roughly 1 hire per 3-4 interviews). If yours is below 15%, your screening criteria aren't predictive—people look good on paper but fail in interviews. This means your JD emphasizes the wrong qualifications. If it's above 40%, you're screening too strictly and might be missing good candidates who don't perfectly match the JD.

Time-in-stage metrics: If qualified candidates sit in "applied" status for 2 weeks before screening, they're accepting other offers. Screening data shows where delays happen. If it takes forever to screen because you're drowning in unqualified applicants, your JD is too broad. Tighten requirements to reduce volume and improve quality.

Rejection reason analysis: Why are you saying no to candidates? If 60% of rejections are "lacks required certification" but the certification isn't prominently featured in your JD, you're wasting everyone's time. If 40% are "overqualified," your JD undersells the role—senior candidates apply thinking it's bigger than it is. Rejection patterns diagnose JD problems.

Source quality by job board: LinkedIn applicants pass screening at 25%, but Indeed applicants pass at 8%. Your JD language might resonate differently on different platforms. Or LinkedIn's audience is closer to your target (e.g., more experienced professionals). Tailor JD language for each platform, or focus budget on sources with better conversion.

How do you identify which job requirements actually matter?

Compare what you ask for in the JD to what you actually hire.

Step 1: Pull data on candidates you interviewed and hired. List every requirement from your job description (years of experience, education, specific skills, certifications, tools, industry background). For each requirement, calculate: % of interviewed candidates who met it, % of hired candidates who met it, % of top performers (based on post-hire evaluations) who met it.

Step 2: Identify "ghost requirements." These are listed in the JD but ignored in practice. Example: JD says "Bachelor's degree required," but 30% of your hires don't have one and perform just as well as those who do. Ghost requirements shrink your pipeline without improving quality. Remove them or change them to "preferred" instead of "required."

Step 3: Find hidden requirements. Skills you screen for heavily but didn't emphasize in the JD. Example: You reject 50% of candidates for "weak writing samples," but "strong writing skills" is buried in the middle of a paragraph. Move it to required qualifications and ask for a writing sample upfront. This filters unqualified candidates before they apply, saving screening time.

Step 4: Validate years-of-experience requirements. Is there actually a performance difference between candidates with 3 vs. 5 years of experience? Often, no. Research shows work experience correlates weakly with job performance (0.07 correlation). If your data shows 3-year and 5-year candidates perform similarly, lower the requirement to 3+ and expand your pipeline. If 7+ year candidates significantly outperform, raise it and accept fewer applicants.

Step 5: Test credential requirements. Do candidates with degrees outperform those with certifications or bootcamp training? If not, shift from "Bachelor's degree required" to "Bachelor's degree OR equivalent certification/training." Skills-based hiring improves quality-of-hire by 36% and increases retention because you're selecting for ability, not proxies.

Bottom line: If you list a requirement but hire people without it, or if having it doesn't predict success, delete it from the JD. Every unnecessary requirement cuts your applicant pool and increases screening burden.

What keywords should you add or remove based on screening data?

The words that appear on resumes you advance vs. resumes you reject.

Find high-signal keywords: Export resumes of candidates you interviewed or hired. Use text analysis (or just manual review for small samples) to identify common terms. What job titles do they use? What skills appear most frequently? What tools or methodologies do they mention? These are high-signal keywords—they correlate with qualified candidates. Add them to your JD so: ATS systems match these resumes, candidates using those terms recognize the role as relevant, search engines surface your job to people using those keywords.

Example: You're hiring a "Marketing Manager." Screening data shows your best candidates use terms like "demand generation," "ABM," "marketing automation," "HubSpot," and "pipeline acceleration." Add these to your JD. Candidates searching for "demand generation jobs" will find you. ATS will rank resumes with "ABM experience" higher.

Remove low-signal keywords: Terms that appear equally on resumes you reject and resumes you advance don't help. "Team player," "detail-oriented," "fast-paced environment"—everyone includes these. They don't differentiate qualified from unqualified. Removing fluff makes room for specific, meaningful requirements that actually filter.

Align terminology with candidate language: Your company calls the role "Customer Success Engineer," but candidates call themselves "Technical Account Managers" or "Solutions Engineers." If you only use your internal title, you'll miss qualified people searching for jobs using industry-standard terms. Screening data reveals this mismatch when you see great candidates with "wrong" titles. Solution: Use multiple titles in your JD or add "also known as TAM, Solutions Engineer" so search algorithms connect you.

Include negative keywords for unqualified candidates: If you keep getting applicants from the wrong industry, add clarifying language. Example: "This is a B2B SaaS sales role; B2C retail experience is not applicable." Sounds harsh, but it saves unqualified candidates from wasting time and saves you from screening 100 irrelevant resumes.

Benchmark: 83% of recruiters prefer candidates who tailor resumes to JDs. Make it easy for them by using the exact keywords they're likely to include. Aligning resume titles with job titles increased interview rates 3.5x in a 2024 study of 1M+ applications.

How does screening data show if your job description is too long or too short?

Application behavior reveals JD effectiveness.

Click-to-apply conversion rate: What % of people who view your job posting actually start the application? Industry benchmark: 6% average, 35%+ is excellent, below 3% is a problem. Low conversion means: your JD is overwhelming (too long, too many requirements, sounds too hard), compensation isn't compelling or isn't listed, the role isn't clearly explained, or your employer brand is weak (candidates don't trust or want to work for you).

Application completion rate: Of people who start, how many finish? Low completion rates often correlate with overly long or complex JDs that make the role seem bureaucratic. If your JD is 1,500 words listing 25 requirements, candidates give up. Aim for 600-800 words covering: role summary (2-3 sentences on what the job actually is), 5-7 key responsibilities (not 15), 5-7 must-have qualifications (not "nice to haves"), clear compensation range (if legally allowed), and what makes your company/team compelling (1 paragraph).

Time-on-page data (if available): If people spend 15 seconds on your JD before bouncing, it's either too long (they skimmed and got overwhelmed) or too vague (they couldn't tell if it's relevant). Ideal: 1-2 minutes, indicating they read it and decided to apply or not.

Screening data correlation: Do longer JDs produce better applicants? Often, no. Companies that trimmed JDs from 1,200 words to 600 saw application volume drop 20% but screen-pass rates improve 35%—fewer applicants, but way more qualified. Concise JDs with specific requirements repel unqualified candidates (good) and attract people who clearly match (better).

Test it: Rewrite your JD to be 30% shorter, focusing only on true must-haves. Track applicant quality for 2 weeks. If screen-pass rate improves, the shorter version is better. If you get too few applicants, you over-corrected—add back some "nice to have" language to widen the net slightly.

How do you use applicant drop-off data to fix your job description?

Where candidates abandon the process reveals what's broken.

Drop-off during application: If candidates start applying but quit halfway through, your application asks for too much too soon. Common mistakes: requiring a cover letter for every job (most candidates skip these roles unless desperate), asking for references upfront (way too early), requiring 10 years of detailed work history for an entry-level role. Screening data shows abandonment points. Fix: Simplify early stages. Collect only essential info (resume, contact info, 2-3 knockout questions). Save detailed questions for later screening stages.

Drop-off after seeing compensation: If your JD lists salary late in the posting and application rates drop 40% once candidates scroll down, your pay is below market or your range is too wide ("$50K-$120K"—which signals you have no idea what the role is worth). Solution: Research market rates. If you're competitive, lead with compensation. If you're below market, emphasize other benefits (equity, remote work, growth opportunities) earlier in the JD.

Drop-off between apply and screen: Candidates apply, then ghost when you reach out for screening. This means: they applied to 50 jobs and already accepted another offer (you're too slow), your JD oversold the role and reality disappointed them, or they didn't read the JD carefully and realized later it's not a fit. Fix: Make JD requirements crystal clear so only truly interested candidates apply. Speed up screening—companies that screen within 48 hours of application have 3x better candidate engagement.

Drop-off between screen and interview: Candidates pass screening but decline interviews. Red flag. Possible causes: your screening process is too slow (they got other offers), your Glassdoor reviews are terrible (they researched your company after applying and bailed), or compensation discussions during screening scared them off. Screening data + exit surveys reveal why. Fix the underlying problem, not just the JD—but if the JD misrepresents the role, that's a trust issue.

What does quality-of-hire data tell you about job description effectiveness?

Post-hire performance reveals if your JD selects for the right things.

Compare JD requirements to actual performance: Do candidates who met all JD requirements perform better than those who met 70%? If not, your JD overemphasizes credentials that don't predict success. Skills-based screening improves quality-of-hire by 36% because it focuses on what people can do, not what schools they attended.

Retention analysis: Do hires who perfectly matched the JD stay longer, or do they leave faster? Sometimes "perfect match" candidates get bored (role is too easy) or feel misled (JD oversold the role). If retention is better among candidates who met 80% of requirements but brought unexpected skills, your JD might be too narrow. Broaden it to attract diverse backgrounds.

Time-to-productivity: How long before new hires become fully effective? If people hired through revised JDs (based on screening data) reach productivity 20% faster, your new JD is selecting better. If they're slower, you removed something important—add it back.

Manager satisfaction scores: Do hiring managers rate candidates from your revised JD higher than candidates from the old version? If yes, your data-driven JD improvements are working. If no, dig into why. Maybe the JD is better but screening criteria need adjustment, or interviewer training is inconsistent.

Promotion rates: Are people hired under your new JD advancing faster? This indicates you're selecting higher-potential candidates. If promotion rates drop, your revised JD might be selecting for current skills but missing growth indicators (curiosity, learning agility, leadership potential).

Diversity outcomes: Did your JD changes improve or hurt diversity? Removing unnecessary credential requirements (like degrees) often increases diverse hiring because it reduces bias. If diversity dropped, audit your JD for biased language or requirements that disproportionately exclude underrepresented groups.

How often should you update job descriptions based on screening data?

Treat JDs like living documents, not set-it-and-forget-it templates.

After every 50-100 applications: Review screening metrics. Are you getting quality applicants? Is screen-pass rate acceptable (target: 10-20%)? If numbers are off, tweak the JD immediately. Small adjustments (adding keywords, clarifying requirements, shortening length) can dramatically improve applicant quality within days.

Quarterly reviews for recurring roles: If you hire Software Engineers or Sales Reps regularly, review JD performance every quarter. Market conditions change. Terminology evolves. Competitor job postings shift. What worked in Q1 might underperform in Q3. Update keywords, requirements, and compensation ranges based on fresh screening data.

After every failed search: If you posted a JD and didn't fill the role within target time-to-fill, do a post-mortem. What went wrong? Not enough applicants? (JD too restrictive or bad sourcing.) Too many unqualified applicants? (JD too vague.) Qualified candidates declined offers? (JD oversold the role or undersold compensation.) Fix the JD before reposting.

When market conditions shift: Economic downturn? Application volume spikes—you can tighten JD requirements. Tight labor market? Loosen requirements and emphasize benefits to attract scarce talent. Screening data shows these shifts in real-time. Adapt your JDs accordingly.

A/B test different versions: Post two variations of the same JD (on different job boards or at different times) and compare results. Version A: Traditional, credential-focused. Version B: Skills-based, concise. Track applicant volume, quality, diversity, and screen-pass rate. Use the winner as your template. This is how companies improved applicant quality 35% and cut screening time in half—continuous testing and iteration.

Don't wait for perfection: Post a decent JD, collect screening data for 2 weeks, revise based on what you learn, repeat. Data-driven iteration beats endless planning.

What's the biggest mistake companies make when writing job descriptions?

Ignoring the feedback loop between JD, applicant behavior, and screening outcomes.

The mistake: HR writes a JD based on a hiring manager's wish list, posts it, and never looks at performance data. Meanwhile: 75% of applicants get auto-rejected by ATS, screening takes 3 weeks because you're drowning in unqualified resumes, qualified candidates ghost you because the process is too slow, and hiring managers complain "recruiting isn't sending me good candidates." The JD is the root cause, but nobody connects the dots.

The fix: Treat job descriptions as hypotheses, not finished products. Your JD predicts: "If we ask for X, Y, and Z, we'll attract qualified candidates." Screening data tests that hypothesis. If you're wrong (low applicant quality, high rejection rates, poor conversion), revise the hypothesis. This is how data-driven companies hire faster and better—they learn from every job posting and continuously improve.

Build the feedback loop: Write JD → Post and source candidates → Track screening metrics (application rate, screen-pass rate, interview conversion, rejection reasons) → Identify JD problems (wrong keywords, inflated requirements, vague language) → Revise JD → Repeat. Companies doing this reduce time-to-fill by 55% and dramatically improve candidate quality because they're not repeating the same mistakes every hire.

Bottom line: Your resume screening data is a goldmine of insights about what's broken in your job descriptions. Most companies ignore it and wonder why hiring is hard. Use the data. Fix the JDs. Watch applicant quality soar and screening time plummet.

Related reading

• What Hiring Metrics Your Resume Screening Dashboard Should Track
• Best Analytics for Optimizing Your Resume Screening Funnel
• Complete Guide to Resume Screening Reporting for Stakeholders
• Why Data-Driven Resume Screening Improves Quality of Hire by 67%

Join the conversation

• r/recruiting – Job description best practices
• r/humanresources – Data-driven hiring strategies
• r/TalentAcquisition – Applicant quality and screening
• Hacker News – Tech recruiting and JD optimization