Does One Sound Better?

Okay, see whether you have any opinion on the subtle difference between these two summary blurbs that are the first thing to appear under contact info in a technical and managerial oriented resume:

Version 1:

Computer generalist with uncommon depth of experience: Over twenty years regularly using computers, fourteen years formally providing or supervising delivery of support and training, eight years comprehensive outsourced support and network administration in law firm environments, ten years creating and maintaining web sites, fifteen years building and repairing computers, plus various support of programmers, coordination of projects, and some writing, testing, debugging, tweaking and maintenance of software.  Strong ability to lead, communicate and interact well with and between both technical and non-technical people.

Version 2:

Computer generalist with uncommon depth of experience: Strong ability to lead, communicate and interact well with and between both technical and non-technical people.  Fourteen years formally providing or supervising delivery of support and training, with eight of comprehensive outsourced support and network administration in law firm environments, ten years creating and maintaining web sites, fifteen years building and repairing computers, over twenty-two years using computers as a matter of course, plus various support of programmers, coordination of projects, and some writing, testing, debugging, tweaking and maintenance of software. 

Not done tweaking the rest yet, so thought I’d give people a brief time to opine before it’s set in electrons.

1. Since you asked...I think both versions have problems in that neither paragraph is easy to skim. I’ve read that the recruiter or HR person only spends 15 to 20 seconds skimming a resume to decide if it’s in the look closer or never look at again pile. Those paragraphs are so information dense that skimming them is tough.

   That said, I’m a technical sales guy and not a hiring manager, so this opinion is worth exactly what you are paying for it.

   Posted by COD  on  03/10  at  09:27 PM  from 

2. I prefer version 2.  I agree with “COD” that it is hard to skim.  One way to fix that but not lose the content (which is good BTW) is make them bullet points.  Also please get rid of the word “tweaking” in regards to SW development.

   Posted by  on  03/10  at  09:53 PM  from  Red Sox Nation

3. That was an interesting exercise, in that it’s totally out of context and looks better on paper, and was supposed to be about wording, but I think I see how I can shorten the entire thing to be punchier.

   It’s just funny to go from catchy and brief to hiring people need detail up front to don’t give them too much detail lest they be bored.  I’ve been bored in that position myself, so better to avoid it, but it’s also expressly not a bullet point segment.

   I actually *have* written a similar summary in a shorter form, so this can be distilled.

   Now I’m worried about the length of some of my bullet points, which capture much per bullet lest I have too many bullets.  Effectively the serve to make what would be one big description easier to read.  But you’ll see.

   Posted by Jay  on  03/10  at  10:58 PM  from  Rock <> Hard Place

4. Version 2 is better, though I agree with the comment about skimming.  I would also remove the phrase “using computers”.  It doesn’t sound right.  Using computers is something everybody does now.  It sounds weird, as if I put down “using calculators” under my skills as a finance guy.  It’s true, but sounds weird.

   Posted by rob sama  on  03/11  at  09:45 AM  from 
Page 1 of 1 pages

<< Back to main