If it makes you feel any better, I'm in the hiring business, and I also was out of work for a year. Like you I fielded hundreds of calls from recruiters (they never told me their nationality, but they didn't speak like I do!)--and not a single one of them went anywhere either. That's because they're outsourced recruiters at the lowest ru…
If it makes you feel any better, I'm in the hiring business, and I also was out of work for a year. Like you I fielded hundreds of calls from recruiters (they never told me their nationality, but they didn't speak like I do!)--and not a single one of them went anywhere either. That's because they're outsourced recruiters at the lowest rung of recruiting, with hyper competition for the positions they're recruiting for. It's literally a million-to-one shot with them.
And honestly, even though you read about it in the news, ghost jobs aren't a real thing to worry about. It happens--but you'll have to trust me that we don't have the time to waste time on posting jobs that we can't fill--we're too busy trying to fill the real jobs we do have! (The company I work for does post multiple job postings of the same vacancy--but that's a function of Indeed's limitations on us that we have to get around to attract the most/best people--so we have to post multiple postings for the one job. Is that a "ghost job?" No--it's a duplicate posting so we can actually reach YOU!)
Networking with your friends (Indian, included!) is the way to get a job--and just ignore the recruiters who call you but can't give any level of detail to your screening interview, or any level of detail behind the job or employer. They're a time-suck.
With all due respect, your comment doesn’t make me feel any better. In fact, parts of it come across as dismissive and condescending. I don’t know if that was your intent, but statements like, “(they never told me their nationality, but they didn’t speak like I do!)” and “Networking with your friends (Indian, included!) is the way to get a job” feel unnecessary and out of touch. I explicitly mentioned the nationality of the recruiters because it was evident from their names and accents, not as a criticism, but as an observation about the recruiting landscape I’ve encountered.
As for networking, I’ve done plenty of it, and I’m fully aware of its importance. Preaching basic strategies as if I haven’t tried them is frustrating and misses the point. The job market today isn’t just about effort or connections -- it’s riddled with systemic inefficiencies and issues like ghost jobs, which you dismiss far too easily.
You say ghost jobs aren’t real or worth worrying about, but my experience, along with that of many others, says otherwise. Companies absolutely do post jobs they have no intention of filling -- whether it’s to create a talent pipeline, boost their perceived growth, or fulfill internal metrics. It might not happen at your company, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a widespread problem.
Finally, the claim that "we’re too busy trying to fill the real jobs" is simply not representative of how the market operates for many companies. If anything, ghost jobs are part of a larger transparency issue in hiring that leaves candidates spinning their wheels while employers play games with the system.
If you have constructive advice that isn’t wrapped in what feels like passive-aggressive jabs, I’d be happy to hear it. But dismissing valid concerns about ghost jobs and the state of the job market isn’t helpful.
It’s well known in my town that the university will publicly post positions that they already have an internal candidate for. They’re required to do it but you’ll never get an interview if you apply. If this major research university does this then I’m sure others do as well. Ghost jobs are real.
That's actually a good point. It comes down to semantics and definitions for us, and there's a breakdown between what a "ghost job" really means for us both.
For me (and not for people outside of hiring) a ghost job is one that doesn't have ANY work/vacancy behind it. In your example I'd describe this as a real vacancy but with a pre-identified *possible/probable* internal candidate.
You can blame our elected officials in many cases for making us post these kinds of jobs. If the employer holds any business with the government they're required to post such jobs publicly for some days--regardless of whether they've already identified a possible/probably candidate. That part is a game that we all have to play, and we can agree that it sucks.
Love that you're taking offense on behalf of the HR bullshitter, as you (being a human being) correctly recognized my comment as an insult whereas he did not.
I noticed you didn’t respond to my earlier comment, which directly challenged your dismissal of ghost jobs as “not a real thing to worry about.” Instead, you replied to someone else’s example, which seemed easier to address. Selectively engaging in this way comes across as dismissive and avoids meaningful discussion.
As for your reply to the other commenter, saying it “comes down to semantics" - it feels like an attempt to downplay the issue. Ghost job, whether posted because of government requirements, internal politics, or other strategies, waste candidates’ time and create distrust in the hiring process. The distinction you’re making about vacancies being “real” but pre-identified doesn’t change the impact on applicants: they’re engaging with opportunities that were never accessible to them in the first place.
You may call it “the game,” but for job seekers, it’s exhausting and demoralizing. Instead of deflecting with semantics, acknowledge the broader systemic problem and the very real frustrations it creates for candidates. Whether you choose to respond to me now or continue avoiding it, the reality of ghost jobs remains undeniable for those of us experiencing their consequences firsthand.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm in the hiring business, and I also was out of work for a year. Like you I fielded hundreds of calls from recruiters (they never told me their nationality, but they didn't speak like I do!)--and not a single one of them went anywhere either. That's because they're outsourced recruiters at the lowest rung of recruiting, with hyper competition for the positions they're recruiting for. It's literally a million-to-one shot with them.
And honestly, even though you read about it in the news, ghost jobs aren't a real thing to worry about. It happens--but you'll have to trust me that we don't have the time to waste time on posting jobs that we can't fill--we're too busy trying to fill the real jobs we do have! (The company I work for does post multiple job postings of the same vacancy--but that's a function of Indeed's limitations on us that we have to get around to attract the most/best people--so we have to post multiple postings for the one job. Is that a "ghost job?" No--it's a duplicate posting so we can actually reach YOU!)
Networking with your friends (Indian, included!) is the way to get a job--and just ignore the recruiters who call you but can't give any level of detail to your screening interview, or any level of detail behind the job or employer. They're a time-suck.
With all due respect, your comment doesn’t make me feel any better. In fact, parts of it come across as dismissive and condescending. I don’t know if that was your intent, but statements like, “(they never told me their nationality, but they didn’t speak like I do!)” and “Networking with your friends (Indian, included!) is the way to get a job” feel unnecessary and out of touch. I explicitly mentioned the nationality of the recruiters because it was evident from their names and accents, not as a criticism, but as an observation about the recruiting landscape I’ve encountered.
As for networking, I’ve done plenty of it, and I’m fully aware of its importance. Preaching basic strategies as if I haven’t tried them is frustrating and misses the point. The job market today isn’t just about effort or connections -- it’s riddled with systemic inefficiencies and issues like ghost jobs, which you dismiss far too easily.
You say ghost jobs aren’t real or worth worrying about, but my experience, along with that of many others, says otherwise. Companies absolutely do post jobs they have no intention of filling -- whether it’s to create a talent pipeline, boost their perceived growth, or fulfill internal metrics. It might not happen at your company, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a widespread problem.
Finally, the claim that "we’re too busy trying to fill the real jobs" is simply not representative of how the market operates for many companies. If anything, ghost jobs are part of a larger transparency issue in hiring that leaves candidates spinning their wheels while employers play games with the system.
If you have constructive advice that isn’t wrapped in what feels like passive-aggressive jabs, I’d be happy to hear it. But dismissing valid concerns about ghost jobs and the state of the job market isn’t helpful.
It’s well known in my town that the university will publicly post positions that they already have an internal candidate for. They’re required to do it but you’ll never get an interview if you apply. If this major research university does this then I’m sure others do as well. Ghost jobs are real.
That's actually a good point. It comes down to semantics and definitions for us, and there's a breakdown between what a "ghost job" really means for us both.
For me (and not for people outside of hiring) a ghost job is one that doesn't have ANY work/vacancy behind it. In your example I'd describe this as a real vacancy but with a pre-identified *possible/probable* internal candidate.
You can blame our elected officials in many cases for making us post these kinds of jobs. If the employer holds any business with the government they're required to post such jobs publicly for some days--regardless of whether they've already identified a possible/probably candidate. That part is a game that we all have to play, and we can agree that it sucks.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you strike me as someone who posts on LinkedIn.
You're definitely my top candidate for "most likely to be an out-of-nowhere asshole" on this board
Love that you're taking offense on behalf of the HR bullshitter, as you (being a human being) correctly recognized my comment as an insult whereas he did not.
I wish I knew how that might be a dis, or a compliment! Haha! I am on LinkedIn, but don't post much. Not really my comfort zone!
Thanks for the engagement? <smile>
You're creepy.
You're welcome. I'll definitely take that the wrong way!
I noticed you didn’t respond to my earlier comment, which directly challenged your dismissal of ghost jobs as “not a real thing to worry about.” Instead, you replied to someone else’s example, which seemed easier to address. Selectively engaging in this way comes across as dismissive and avoids meaningful discussion.
As for your reply to the other commenter, saying it “comes down to semantics" - it feels like an attempt to downplay the issue. Ghost job, whether posted because of government requirements, internal politics, or other strategies, waste candidates’ time and create distrust in the hiring process. The distinction you’re making about vacancies being “real” but pre-identified doesn’t change the impact on applicants: they’re engaging with opportunities that were never accessible to them in the first place.
You may call it “the game,” but for job seekers, it’s exhausting and demoralizing. Instead of deflecting with semantics, acknowledge the broader systemic problem and the very real frustrations it creates for candidates. Whether you choose to respond to me now or continue avoiding it, the reality of ghost jobs remains undeniable for those of us experiencing their consequences firsthand.
Thanks for your perspective. Super fascinating.
Is this tech specific?
Yes--my experience with H1s has largely been in the IT space--but I've done/led hiring in (almost?) every other industry as well.