I think this is a valid to an extent, like accepting a title of "expert" in a technology used by the company that you know well but are not actually a real "expert" in. You and I know that the real experts are the guys constantly replying to stuff on the mailing lists and making lots of significant patches to the core of the project, but sometimes it's OK to condescend to use the vocabulary of the plebes and just embrace "expert" within that context. You aren't deceiving anyone here because it's just a different definition of a word, and you are using the definition that the other people expect. In fact one could say it's deceptive to insist on your specific concept of an expert when you know that the people interviewing just need someone qualified.
But I think claiming experience with an explicit version that was stated is going a little bit too far. It's important to clarify. Maybe someone actually does need help with the new platform, and after all, if they're having inept recruiters do their pre-hire screening, you're probably not missing much anyway.
There is a bit of line to fudge there but it definitely doesn't extend into falsifying tasks or skillsets imo.
Definitely. And I suppose I should have clarified; the 'advancing your skill-set' bit was a joke. Or at-least meant to have humour behind it. Sadly the internets doesn't pass off the jovial nature of my voice. :D
But I think claiming experience with an explicit version that was stated is going a little bit too far. It's important to clarify. Maybe someone actually does need help with the new platform, and after all, if they're having inept recruiters do their pre-hire screening, you're probably not missing much anyway.
There is a bit of line to fudge there but it definitely doesn't extend into falsifying tasks or skillsets imo.