I’m looking through these Twittery resumes, and I divide them into two types: One for appealing to machines (or people acting like machines), and the other for connecting with humans. Those who dress up their resumes for machines jam them to the 140-character gills with data. Those who connect with humans opt for more memorable images or ideas.
Examples. Mike Neumann fills his with data:
@mikeneumann, Smart Cards - 10 years, appdev, devmgr,PM, biz dev, ISO/IEC editor, consultant. 3GI/RSA Security/Schlumberger/Axalto/StepNexus/ind consult.
It’s boring, I think even Mike would agree, but useful. The trouble? Unless an employer is looking specifically for those skills, there’s no spark of Mike.
My resume has exactly the same problem:
NYC BizWeek/Blogspotting writer on blogs, clouds and math, ex Caracas,ElPaso,MexCity,Pitt,Paris. Twits,bikes. Book Numerati out in Sept.
No sign of me except for that bland reference to biking. This may not matter; in many scenarios, machines will be sifting through our resumes, which will be optimized for them, not for people. Still, I would argue that for the kinds of jobs most of us want (ie. good ones), a personal connection is necessary.
Stowe Boyd gives plenty of information, but accompanies it with a couple brush strokes of his blood-boiling self:
Obsessive advocate/student of social tools’ impact on media, business and society; impresario; hothead; author of www.stoweboyd.com/Message
Still, I think the most effective Resuwitters intrigue us, and lead us to hunt down more information about the person. They’re a hint, not a download. @ZachGonzales sends me a seven-letter for Salvador Dali: “Lobster.”
Lobster? I Google “Dali Lobster” and I see this phone. Dali comes sharply into focus, down to extravagent moustache and the twinkle in his eye. And that’s when it hits me. The Resutwitters are not exclusively for machines or for people. The best ones inspire people to search out more about us. The details are online. For the hook, 140 characters is usually way too much space.