BOSS Direct Recruitment was accused of falsely promoting “accurate matching”, and users’ actual recommended resumes differed by more than 60% from job requirements.

BOSS Direct Recruitment was accused of false advertising due to its “accurate matching” function and caused widespread controversy. Actual user measurements show that the deviation between the resumes recommended by the platform and the job requirements exceeds 60%, and the core contradiction is concentrated in the serious disconnect between the algorithm matching logic and the publicity effect.

1. Actual user data and accusations of false propaganda

1. Specific manifestations of matching bias

Basic conditions are not up to standard: The job requirement posted by the user is "bachelor degree or above + 3 years of experience", but more than 60% of the recommended resumes have a college degree or less than 1 year of experience. For example, an Internet company is recruiting "Java development engineers", and 40% of the resumes recommended by the platform are fresh graduates or people changing careers from non-technical positions.

Mismatch between skills and job requirements: Users emphasized that “you need to be proficient in using Python”, but 60% of the recommended resumes did not mention relevant skills. A financial company is recruiting for "data analysis positions", and 50% of the resumes recommended by the platform have marketing or administrative backgrounds.

Conflict between region and salary: The user setting is "only in Beijing area + monthly salary above 10k", but 40% of the recommended resumes are from other places or the expected salary is less than 8k. A technology company was recruiting “product managers” and 35% of the resumes recommended by the platform were from second- and third-tier cities and the salary requirements did not match.

2. Comparison between user accusations and industry

Legal definition of false propaganda: According to Article 4 of the Advertising Law of the People's Republic of China, "advertising must not contain false content, and must not deceive or mislead consumers." Users believe that there is a significant difference between the promotion of "accurate matching" of BOSS direct recruitment and the actual effect, and they are suspected of violating this clause.

Differences between competing products: The matching accuracy of platforms such as Zhaopin Recruitment and 515555 is generally 70%-80%, while the actual measurement for BOSS direct-recruitment users is only 30%-40%. For example, 51job's "advanced search" function uses keyword weighting algorithms to more accurately screen resumes that meet requirements.

3. Platform response and customer service pushback

There is no clear official explanation: As of May 2025, BOSS Direct Recruitment has not issued an official statement on the issue of “accurate matching” deviation. When some users gave feedback through customer service, the answers they received were mostly “the algorithm needs to be continuously optimized” or “manual screening is recommended”.

Disputes over customer service tactics: After users complain, customer service often shirks responsibility on the grounds of “dynamic changes in the resume database” and “inaccurate user settings”, and even requires users to “purchase higher-level services” to improve the matching effect.

2. Technical mechanism and matching logic defects

1. Limitations of algorithm design

Over-reliance on keyword matching: BOSS’s direct recruitment algorithm mainly matches job descriptions and resumes through keyword overlap, ignoring contextual semantics and implicit ability requirements. For example, the "data analysis" position may be matched to job seekers who only master basic Excel skills, while candidates with real SQL and Python abilities are not recommended.

Imbalanced weighting of behavioral data: The platform pays too much attention to user click behavior (such as the number of resume views), while ignoring actual communication and interview results. HR of a company reported that some resumes were continuously recommended due to frequent clicks, but after actual communication, they found that they did not meet the requirements at all.

2. Data quality and user profiling issues

Distortion of resume information: The platform’s review mechanism for job seekers’ resumes is weak, and there is a large amount of false information (such as exaggerated work experience and fictitious skills). One user complained that 30% of the “project experience” in the recommended resumes failed to pass the background check.

Blurred corporate portraits: BOSS Direct Recruitment’s labeling of corporate positions is too simple and fails to accurately reflect the core needs of the positions. For example, the position of "marketing manager" may be generically labeled as "sales," resulting in a large number of sales resumes being matched.

3. Commercialization-oriented algorithm bias

Prioritize recommendation of paid services: The platform places positions from paid companies at the top of the recommendation list, even if their matching degree with user needs is low. The HR of a small and medium-sized enterprise found that the number of job recommendations for those who did not purchase the "exposure refresh card" was only 1/3 of the paid positions.

Bundled sales of value-added services: Precise filtering functions (such as filtering by industry and salary range) are split into paid items, resulting in non-recharged users being unable to effectively filter low-matching resumes.

3. Signal of strengthening supervision: In April 2025, the State Administration for Market Regulation launched a “Special Rectification of Online Recruitment”, focusing on cracking down on false propaganda, data falsification and other behaviors. Those directly hired by BOSS may face interviews or administrative penalties.

The controversy over BOSS’s “accurate matching” of direct recruitment is essentially an imbalance between technical capabilities and commercial commitments. Although the platform attempts to improve the matching effect through algorithm optimization and function iteration, its over-reliance on keyword matching and insufficient data quality control have not yet been fundamentally resolved. Users need to safeguard their rights and interests through legal means, while platforms need to find a balance between technical investment and business ethics. In the future, with the further development of AI technology and the strengthening of supervision, the matching accuracy of recruitment platforms is expected to gradually improve, but the definition of “accuracy” still needs to be redefined based on the actual needs of users and industry standards.

This information comes from the Internet. If there is any infringement, please contact news@onlinedown.net to delete it~