Hey all,
Not sure if it’s just my pipeline or if this is becoming a thing, but I’m seeing a growing number of candidates who feel… off. Some resumes look solid on paper, but once we get to a video call, things don’t line up. I’ve had a couple of interviews where the person on screen didn’t seem to match the CV at all, and a few calls that honestly felt like someone else was feeding answers or even borderline deep-fake-ish. Super uncomfortable, and it’s slowing everything down.
What’s helped a bit since we started using Talantly is forcing more structure earlier. I’ve been leaning on it to:
- compare the CV strictly against the job requirements (huge gaps jump out faster)
- look for inconsistencies between claimed experience and how candidates answer skill-based questions
- flag profiles where the “story” just doesn’t hold together across roles, timelines, and skills
It doesn’t magically solve the problem, but it helps me catch red flags before I invest too much time in interviews. I’ve also started asking candidates to walk me through very concrete examples tied to their resume, which fake profiles struggle with fast.
Still, it feels like this is getting more common, not less. Are others seeing the same thing? Any practical tricks you’re using — tools, process changes, verification steps — to deal with fake or impersonated candidates without turning hiring into an interrogation?
Would really love to hear how people are handling this, because this trend is… not great 😅
Oh wow, you're definitely not alone on this - I've been seeing the same uptick in my pipeline over the past few months, and it's honestly been one of the more frustrating parts of scaling our hiring. The mismatch between resume and actual capability during calls has become almost predictable at this point. I've found similar value in having more structured early-stage filtering - Talantly's been helpful for me in catching those timeline inconsistencies and skill gaps that used to slip through, especially when I'm moving fast on multiple roles. One thing that's worked well is asking candidates to screen-share and walk through actual work samples or code they've written, since that's really hard to fake in real-time. I've also started doing brief technical phone screens before video calls for certain roles, which helps weed out the obvious mismatches without the awkwardness of a face-to-face disconnect. The whole situation feels like an arms race though - as soon as we adapt our process, the fake profiles seem to evolve too. Have you noticed any patterns in where these candidates are coming from, or is it pretty scattered across platforms?
This is such a timely discussion - I've been grappling with the exact same issues over the past several months, and it's honestly become one of the more challenging aspects of our staffing process. The disconnect between what's on paper versus what shows up in interviews has been particularly pronounced in our consulting pipeline.
What's been most concerning for me is how sophisticated some of these misrepresentations have become. I've had candidates who clearly understood the industry terminology and could speak generally about methodologies, but when I'd dig into specifics about a project they claimed to have led - asking about stakeholder management challenges, specific frameworks they applied, or how they handled scope changes - the responses would become vague or generic. It's that gap between theoretical knowledge and lived experience that's become a key red flag.
I've found similar value in more structured early screening, and Talantly has helped me spot those timeline inconsistencies and experience gaps more systematically. But honestly, even with better tools, I'm spending more time on verification than I'd like. One approach that's been effective is asking candidates to walk through a specific client challenge from their resume - not just what the problem was, but how they approached stakeholder buy-in, what resistance they encountered, and how they adapted their recommendations. Fake profiles really struggle with that level of situational detail.
I've also started incorporating brief case study discussions earlier in the process, where I present a scenario similar to what they'd face with our clients and ask them to outline their approach. It's not foolproof, but it helps surface whether someone actually has the consulting mindset and experience they claim.
The concerning part is that this seems to be accelerating rather than plateauing. I'm curious if others are seeing this more heavily in certain experience levels or practice areas? For us, it's been particularly noticeable in mid-level strategy and operations roles - positions where the experience claims are significant enough to be valuable but not so senior that the depth of questioning becomes immediately obvious.
The whole situation is forcing us to rethink our entire front-end process, which honestly feels like a tax on legitimate candidates too. Have you found ways to maintain candidate experience while still doing the necessary due diligence?