So, what's this magic 'summary' that keeps coming up?
We've mentioned it a few times now, without actually going into detail. So let's go into detail.
I'm still getting 'recommended' jobs from the main three sources against my personal CV, and they're always wildly inaccurate, to the point of frustration. To show how and why it's all so broken, here's just one role advertised to me as a 'strong applicant', which I put through our engine to see how it really fares.
To be clear, I wouldn't see this role if it were posted with EMeetE. This is to demonstrate why I wouldn't, and why current job sites just don't work for either side.
EMeetE score for a role advertised as a 'strong applicant'
hard-gate requirements failed
The role
3D Visual Specialist. Pushed to me as a 'strong applicant'. EMeetE score: 4/100.
Below is the summary you'd see as an employer, and the one you'd see as a candidate. Neither side gets to see both, but for this exercise we're pulling the curtain back.
What the employer sees
EMPLOYER SUMMARY
- Kit fails all three hard-gate requirements: the profile shows no hands-on experience with the required software, or any comparable 3D package, no demonstrated 3D modelling, rendering, lighting, camera matching, or animation work, and no portfolio evidence of 3D visualisation or photo-simulation projects — these are non-negotiable for this role.
- Kit's 19-year background is in 2D graphic design, print production, studio management, and project management; while Adobe Creative Suite proficiency (Photoshop, Premiere) is relevant at the periphery of the role, it is a minor supporting skill here, not a qualification for a specialist 3D production position.
- There is no evidence of rendering, 3D compositing, camera tracking, or post production of ground-level animations, the core technical competencies the role demands — nor any qualification in media, animation, or a related 3D discipline mentioned in the profile.
- Salary expectations are a secondary concern given the fundamental skills mismatch; even if Kit were otherwise suitable, the absence of any 3D production experience makes this a poor fit that reviewing further would not be a productive use of the employer's time.
What the candidate sees
CANDIDATE SUMMARY
- Your 19+ years of experience is substantial, but it is concentrated in 2D graphic design, print production, project management and creative direction — none of which maps to the core technical requirements of this role, which is built around 3D modelling, rendering and photo-simulation.
- Your Adobe Creative Suite expertise (Photoshop, Premiere) is genuinely relevant to the post-production and compositing components of this role, but those are downstream finishing steps — the role is primarily defined by the 3D production pipeline that precedes them, which you have no stated experience in.
- Your interest in AI tools and emerging technology is noted positively by the job posting, and your technical curiosity is a real personal asset, but it cannot substitute for the specific 3D software proficiency the role requires from day one.
- Your location and the role being based in Christchurch removes a geographic barrier, but given the volume of hard requirement failures — particularly the absence of any 3D visualisation experience or portfolio — this is not a viable match at this time.
The part that bothers me
This and other roles have been pushed to me several times. Of course I did not reply, and they went straight to the trash. I've been trashing a lot of these every other day.
What if I've trashed the one job that's a 90+/100 fit?
And what if the jobs I apply for have had the same level of noise, and the hirer has just selected a bunch of applicants to trash, to get the volume down?
The closer the employer and candidate are aligned on skills and goals, the closer the circles get. The better your confidence that no one is wasting their time, or being lost to the trash.
List your next role to see the difference yourself, or register to find the role that actually fits. Super quick, super easy, and it just works.