I interviewed about 40 people over the last year, and agree specifically with not listing every single possible technology you've touched in the last 10 years, especially things you're not comfortable talking about. Because I will pick ones we're using or that I have experience with, and will ask you questions about them, and if you can't answer really basic questions then I'm a lot less confident you're not bullshitting me about everything else you've written down.
I think (I'll have to touch it up soon) that my CV bundles skills by degree of familiarity. I wonder if that's appropriate?
For instance, I have used lisp dialects to build useful functionality, but I'm not that comfortable with it. Does that kind of thing have a place on a CV?
Most CV advice I could get seemed to be from non-technical people.
I guess I primarily want to showcase adaptability, and making a laundry list of languages I have "notions" of could work. As long as it can be reasonably explained, one can probably put it on a CV, though it depends on the recruiter.
I think it’s more important to focus on core skills.
Put it this way - by far the best two candidates I interviewed this year had CVs that basically said they worked in Python and had for a number of years and told me a bit about projects they did with it. The worst interviews I had were with people who over-egged their ability on a huge range of things and couldn’t answer basics.
Expertise takes time to acquire. I’m skeptical of people who claim to be experts in too many things
While I believe this is true, the problem with the statement is that these resumes and candidates are not claiming expertise; they are listing skills. Basically "I've used this in my work before." That information probably isn't very useful (that you used Jupyter or Git), but the resumes in question are trying to cover all the bases.
