How to write a job post that attracts the right people
Why job posts produce volume instead of quality, what a post cannot fix, and how to write one that filters candidates before they apply.
Three hundred applications and nobody to interview
You posted the role and received two hundred and ninety irrelevant applications and ten that might be worth a call. Or the opposite happened and you received six applications in a fortnight and none of them could do the job. Both outcomes come from the same cause. The post described a job title rather than a job.
A job post is a filter. Its purpose is to make unsuitable people not apply. Most posts are written as advertisements instead and advertisements are optimised to maximise response. Those are opposite goals and the post cannot serve both.
What a post cannot fix and what it costs
A well-written post will not fix an uncompetitive salary. If the role pays meaningfully below market then good copy simply attracts more applicants who withdraw later. The post also will not fix an unattractive role. A job that is three jobs stapled together reads that way no matter how it is phrased and the strong candidates who notice are exactly the ones you wanted.
The direct spend is a posting fee at whatever the platform publishes plus GST where the platform charges it. A recruiter typically works on a percentage of annual cost to company. The cost that matters is the time spent on bad applications. Writing a sharper post is the cheapest intervention available.
When not to post at all
If the role needs one rare skill and you can already name three people in the country who have it then a public post is the wrong route. You will spend a fortnight filtering noise to arrive at the three names you started with. Approach them directly instead.
If you will not state a pay range then reconsider posting on a platform where competing listings do state one. Candidates reading twenty listings use the range as the first filter. A post without one is skipped by people with options and applied to by people applying to everything. That is the precise inversion of what you want. Equally a business with no web presence should fix that first. A candidate worth hiring will search for you and find nothing.
How to write one that filters
Lead with the output. The first two lines should say what this person will produce and for whom. A candidate should be able to read those lines and know whether they have done this before. Then give the range and the location terms and the working pattern. Put the uncomfortable facts here rather than at the bottom. No remote option. Significant travel. A reporting line to a founder who is also doing three other jobs. Each of those loses you applicants and every one it loses would have withdrawn later anyway.
Include one honest paragraph on what is hard about the role. This is the single most effective part of a job post because almost nobody does it. It attracts people who have done hard versions of the work and repels people looking for a quiet seat.
Cut the requirements list to the things you would actually reject on. If you would hire someone without the degree then do not list the degree. Name the person the hire will report to. Finally ask one specific question in the application that requires reading the post. It sorts your inbox for you.
How to judge the post
The metric that matters is the proportion of applications you would genuinely interview. Ten useful applications out of thirty is a working post. Ten out of three hundred is a post that functioned as an advertisement. Offer acceptance rate is the second signal because a post that oversold the role produces candidates who decline once they understand it.
The metrics that flatter are views and application volume. Both rise when you write warmly and vaguely. A high application count on a specialist role usually means the post was not specific enough to deter anyone.
The common mistake
The standard error is the requirements list borrowed from a larger company. Twelve bullet points of which you genuinely need four. The mechanism that makes this expensive is worth understanding. A careful candidate who meets eight of the twelve reads the list and decides not to apply. A candidate who applies to forty roles a week does not read the list at all. So the long list filters out the conscientious and admits the indiscriminate.
The cost shows up as weeks of additional screening and as a shortlist with nobody on it you are excited about. Shortening the list feels like lowering the bar. It is the opposite. A short list of real requirements raises the quality of who applies because it tells capable people the role was written by someone who understands it.
What the advertisement itself can say
Job advertisements carry constraints on what may be specified. Preferences expressed around gender or marital status or age sit awkwardly with equal opportunity principles and in some cases with specific statutory provisions. The practical mechanism is that the post should describe the work and the requirements the work genuinely imposes rather than the characteristics of the person you are picturing. A qualified professional should confirm the position for your situation before you publish wording that specifies anything about a candidate's personal circumstances.
This guide explains how something works. It is not legal, tax or financial advice, and rules change. Confirm anything regulatory with a qualified professional before you act on it.