Bruno, no harm done. I could find my post by just going "back" on the browser. Nice.

Here's my post.



Fine. I stand corrected. So your point is that it is unreasonable to expect that a recruiter asks for an editable version of your resume.
I agree it shouldn'd be like that in a perfect world, assuming a recruiter does not need to edit it. But it is nonetheless perfectly reasonable that they do in reality, because recruiters are not IT people. Most non-IT people I know, of all type and backgrouds, simply are not familiar with "editable" and "non-editable" concepts. If ie has letters on something that looks like a white page, on screen, that's all they need.

As said before, Word is by far the most popular text editor. It is simply logic that you are asked for that format, regardless of how inefficient/ineffective it technically is for the purpose (or in general, for those who like you think "it sucks").

Unless users >need< the featiures a PDF file brings (contracts, legal docs, occasionally), then they will obviously ask for what they know, not what's best: Word.


I did not say so. "Word sucks" has a precise meaning to you, just as "Words rocks" has a precise meaning to others.

My point is that this is irrelevant to most people, and rightfully so. I do not expect everybody to share my expertise, as I don'e expect anybody to assume I share their expertise. There are many things I do wrong because I can't possibly know all.
Assuming that a recruiter, or a plumber, or a medical doctor, necessarily knows the difference between a .doc and a .pfd file is, with all due respect, just absolutely unrealistic.

As technology keeps becoming more popular, I am sure that most people will undesrand as see the difference. Not today, yet.