Corrections
Corrections
This site makes factual claims about how hiring processes work, and some of them will be wrong. When that happens I would rather fix it visibly than quietly.
How to report something
Email support@trainforthejob.com. You do not need to be certain, and you do not need to be polite about it. If something reads as wrong, that is enough reason to send it.
The assessment questions are generated rather than written by hand, so a question is occasionally ambiguous or has an answer worth arguing with. Those reports are useful too. Send the category and roughly what the question asked.
What happens then
I read everything and reply within a few days. If a claim turns out to be wrong, the page gets corrected and the change is listed below with what it used to say. If a claim turns out to be defensible, I will tell you why rather than quietly leaving it.
Small edits, typos, and rewording are not logged. Anything that changes the substance of advice someone might act on is.
Corrections so far
Most of these came from a review of the guides against what actually happens on the hiring side, rather than from a reader. They are listed because they were live, and someone may have acted on them.
- Was
- Said that applicant tracking systems read your CV before a person does, and that formatting decisions "can decide whether it is even seen".
- Now
- Corrected. In practice an ATS gives indications and rarely decides anything on its own. The formatting advice still stands, but for the real reason: it makes a CV scannable by a person working at speed.
- Was
- Advised naming one specific number when countering an offer, "because a range invites the lower end". Also stated that companies deliberately build negotiating room into offers.
- Now
- Both corrected. A realistic range is the better play, and whether room is built in varies by employer and is becoming less common as pay transparency rules take hold.
- Was
- Described the cognitive assessment as "often the first real filter", running before anyone from the company speaks with you.
- Now
- Corrected. In most processes it sits between the first and second interview. Some regions do use it as a gatekeeper, but that is the exception rather than the norm. The same claim was corrected on the interview guide and the homepage.
- Was
- Said that answering strategically produces "contradictory or implausibly extreme results" that the assessment flags.
- Now
- Corrected. The instrument rarely catches it. What actually happens is that the profile flattens toward the middle until it carries no useful signal, and any mismatch surfaces in conversation instead.
- Was
- Offered "free practice" for test categories that were behind the paid tier at the time.
- Now
- Corrected when found. All seven categories have since been made free to practice, so the original wording is now accurate for a different reason.
Why this page exists
Career advice is unusually easy to write confidently and unusually hard to check. A great deal of what circulates online is repeated from other articles rather than from anyone who has run a hiring process, and it is rarely revisited once published.
Keeping a visible record is the simplest way to be held to a higher standard than that. If you want to know who is writing this and why, the about page covers it.