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.

Your argument assumes that the recruiter simply asked for a Word doc, using it as synecdoche (intentionally or not) for a formatted text document of unspecified type and doesn't really care what format it's in as long as she can read it. But this is demonstrably untrue, because I provided a PDF before she specified a format, she was able to read it, and then specifically asked for a Word doc.

No, not my point

Maybe she doesn't like using Acrobat (don't understand the interface, don't know how to search text in it, find it too slow, find the file too big, "just dislike" it).

Maybe she is afraid that .PDF may cause problems of whatever nature and sticks to what she always did, just to be on the safe side: Word.

Maybe she once lost her HDD content and her expert friend told her that Acrobat "has viruses".

Obviously I could go on forever.


I find it perfectly normal to be asked for a "Word format" of whatever electronic content is supposed to resemble a piece of paper with text on it.

Personally, my guess is that either she does want the option to edit it, whether she is supposed to or not, or she simply wants to have your CV in a format she "feels ok" with. I know a lot of people who would chose on these same two parameters.

Well, I just got some confirmation that the reasoning for wanting a Word doc is so they can edit it.

I have an interview tomorrow and the recruiter involved requested that I take printed copies of my resume. He then told me to take the one attached to the email. I never provided them with a Word doc (I don't have a copy of Word and I don't really feel like recreating it anyway), but the attachment was in that format.

It would seem that someone recreated my resume, poorly, redacted all of my personal information (except my name), and replaced it with the recruiter's information.

I happen to be very interested in this job, and the two phone interviews I've already had have gone well. That means that I'll wait until after I have an offer to yell at the recruiter instead of doing it immediately.

Why would the recruiter be trying to get in between you and the company trying to hire you? Are they worried the company will ignore them, hire you directly, and they won't get their tasty commission?

I'm guessing. I'll ask them once I have a job.

Stephen Bonner, head of security for retail at Barclays gave a very good presentation at the London B-Sides conference on how to pass the hiring challenges and a good section of his talk was around why recruitment agents equate to a man-in-the-middle attack. Their main aim is not necessarily to get you the best job; it is for them to get the most referral fees (huge generalisation, obviously, but a useful thing to remember)

The two main reasons for Word docs (given with examples of evidence which I won't copy here):

So recruiter can remove personal info so all comms go through them (so they make sure they get their fee)
So recruiter can add info so your CV is a better match to the job spec (yes, really - even adding skills you never knew you had)