28% of job postings on company career sites have been open over 90 days
A large dataset showing that 28% of job postings on company career sites stay open more than 90 days is fueling concern about “ghost jobs” — roles that are advertised but never seriously intended to be filled. Commenters describe an increasingly broken hiring market: companies leave roles up indefinitely for pipeline-building, optics or compliance, while applicants face automated rejections, poor communication, and ever-longer interview funnels amid heavy use of AI on both sides. Opinions differ on how much is fraud versus bureaucracy or genuine hiring difficulty, but many argue that misleading listings waste vast amounts of candidate time and may justify stronger regulation or platform-level changes.
Prevalence and Nature of “Ghost Jobs”
- Many commenters report widespread “ghost jobs”: listings that reject quickly, then reappear repeatedly, or stay open for months/years without visible hiring.
- Others argue many long‑open roles are “evergreen” (e.g., generic senior engineer reqs, constant backfill in large firms, high‑turnover sectors like hospitality/healthcare), not intentionally fake.
- There’s disagreement on how common truly fake postings are; some cite surveys claiming ~30%+ of companies have them, others call those definitions overly broad.
Why Listings Stay Open So Long (Multiple Explanations)
- Always hiring for certain roles; a single generic posting covers many headcount slots over time.
- Compliance/HR reasons: public sector and some education roles must be advertised even when an internal candidate is already chosen.
- Market testing and signaling: gauge talent quality, benchmark salaries, or signal growth to investors/governments.
- Bad offers: low pay, poor conditions, high cost-of-living locations cause perpetual vacancies.
- Manager behavior: unrealistic requirements, extreme selectivity, or simple incompetence/forgetfulness in closing postings.
- Recruiters and agencies reposting the same jobs, or using ads to build candidate databases.
Impact on Job Seekers
- Massive time waste (hundreds–thousands of applications, often with bespoke forms, portfolios, and cover letters) with low response rates.
- Emotional toll: rejection within minutes, no feedback, repeated exposure to the same listings.
- Perception of fraud and erosion of trust; some see it as data harvesting or metrics gaming.
- Networking and referrals are repeatedly described as far more effective than cold applications.
Hiring-Side Constraints and Behavior
- Hiring managers describe being flooded with 100–1,000+ applications per role, many unqualified or misaligned.
- Processes often span 6–10 weeks with multiple stages (recruiter screen, tech screen, multi‑interview “onsite,” committee decisions), making >90 days common.
- Legal risk and a litigious environment discourage specific rejection feedback; generic, automated responses are safer.
- Managers prioritize obvious matches and tailored resumes; some explicitly treat non‑customized resumes as a negative signal.
AI and Application Noise
- Applicants use LLMs to tailor resumes and generate cover letters; recruiters increasingly use AI to screen them.
- This arms race increases volume and reduces signal, making genuine candidates harder to distinguish.
- Interview cheating via AI is reported; some propose designing interviews that explicitly assume AI use, others see any AI help as “cheating.”
Proposed Fixes and Regulation Ideas
- Auto‑expire postings after ~90 days; require salary ranges; require disclosure when roles are evergreen or already earmarked.
- Stronger legal limits or penalties for fake/never‑intended roles; some suggest regulating job ads more like financial products.
- Cultural suggestions: fewer interview rounds, more training of hires instead of seeking “perfect” candidates, and more direct outreach by hiring managers.