Why the ATS is rejecting great candidates

The Applicant Tracking System (ATS) is supposed to be your greatest efficiency tool, yet many hiring teams find their talent pipelines are shrinking, and high-quality candidates are slipping through the cracks. The culprit isn't necessarily the candidates—it's often outdated ATS configuration errors that reject perfectly qualified applicants before a human eye ever sees them.

By tuning these three critical settings, you can drastically reduce false negatives, increase your qualified candidate pool, and accelerate your time-to-hire.

1. The vver-filtering trap: taming required keyword rigidity

Legacy ATS models and poorly configured modern systems rely too heavily on exact keyword matching, leading to high auto-rejection rates (some sources suggest up to 75% of resumes are never seen by a human).

The configuration error:

Your ATS is set to check for an exact match on critical skills, tools, or certifications.

• Example 1 (Acronyms): Your job description requires "Certified Public Accountant." If a resume only lists "CPA," the ATS may assign a low relevance score or reject it outright.

• Example 2 (Synonyms): Your job calls for "Project Management." The candidate listed "Led cross-functional initiatives" or "Project Coordination." The ATS fails to recognize the contextual equivalence.

The Fix: implement semantic understanding and wildcard/synonym libraries

• Review keyword weighting: Decrease the weight assigned to exact keyword matching and increase the weight given to Skills Section Density and Experience Context. The score should prioritize relevance over density.

• Use full Ttrms and acronyms: In your job descriptions, include the full term and its common acronym (e.g., "Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)"). This ensures the ATS can match either variant.

• Leverage modern AI: If your ATS supports it, activate semantic search or intelligent talent profiling. These features understand that "PM," "Project Manager," and "led cross-functional teams" are all functionally equivalent, recovering falsely rejected high-fit candidates.

2. The format barrier: ending the PDF vs. DOCX debate

The file format war is one of the most common causes of parsing failure. If the ATS cannot successfully convert a resume into its internal text structure, it cannot score it, effectively sending it to the rejection pile.

The configuration error:

Your ATS parsing engine struggles with non-standard formatting, leading to incomplete or garbled candidate profiles. This is particularly common when dealing with:

• Text inside headers and footers (often losing contact information).

• Data trapped inside tables, text boxes, or columns (common in highly graphical, non-ATS-friendly templates).

The Fix: accept all ommon Ffcrmats and demand parse-ability

• The PDF vs. DOCX Verdict: While modern ATS systems are highly capable of reading both PDF and DOCXfiles, a DOCX file remains the safest bet for older or mid-tier systems to ensure maximum compatibility. However, PDF is often preferred because it preserves the candidate's clean formatting. The real danger is the image-based PDF (created by design tools like Canva without embedded text), which is entirely unreadable by any ATS.

• Clear Instructions: Instruct applicants to avoid graphics, tables, and sidebars, and to use standard fonts and clear headings ("Work Experience," "Education").

• Test Your System: Recruiters should regularly test the parsing function of their ATS with a variety of resume layouts (one simple, one with columns, one PDF). If the internal profile is garbled, your configuration is flawed.

3. Knockout questions and arbitrary Filters

Over-reliance on automation for initial screening is a risk. While knockout questions save time, overly rigid settings can filter out candidates with high potential.

The configuration error:

Setting rigid, non-negotiable filters for requirements like "Exactly 5 years of experience," "Must have a Master's degree," or automatically rejecting applications with a gap over six months.

The fix: focus on skills and context over arbitrary years

• Re-evaluate "Must-Haves": Distinguish between true regulatory/legal requirements (e.g., a specific license) and preference-based requirements (e.g., years of experience). Broaden the range for years of experience (e.g., 3+ years instead of "exactly 5").

• Prioritize Transferable Skills: Adjust filters to look for adjacent or transferable skills. An over-qualified candidate rejected on a rigid requirement might be your most efficient long-term hire.

A note to candidates and HR: the critical alignment

While recruiters must fix their ATS settings, job seekers must also optimize their documents. This is where tools become invaluable.

If you are a job seeker experiencing repeated rejection, you need to see your resume the way the robot sees it. This is why you should use an independent checker.

The mafiro Resume ATS Checker is designed to simulate the same logic used by these internal ATS tools, giving you a score and highlighting missing keywords, formatting errors, and weak spots before you submit. It creates the critical alignment between your document and the employer's expectations.

Check your resume ATS-readiness now: https://mafiro.com/resume-ats-checker