Before the AI era, I never really got any feedback on quantifying things. I feel like they request it but never really let it inform their decision making too deeply. It's there for an initial impression and that's it.

A recruiter that is only looking for quantified data will not reach out or explain a rejection though, so it's difficult to be objective about this.

I do C#/.NET too, which a lot of places seem to be behind on job hiring requirements compared to other ecosystems. Most wouldn't care if you had a https://codersrank.io/# resume or a Word resume.

I hadn't considered that it might sound AI-generated. I guess the point is to make it quantifiable.

If that can be achieved in other ways, then why not?

I thought this would be an easy way of showing that.

Try a random resume and the first suggestion you get from them is "Add numbers". You add numbers and you still leave some bullet points without any, and the next suggestion is "Add missing numbers to these bullet points". So as a hiring manager I see resumes with numbers and my instant guess is that resume is generated by any of these services. :D

In general I feel the numbers are _more_ relevant if you (a) hold a senior/manager position and (b) had some actual business impact, e.g. "increased ARR from 1m to 100m as a revops manager", "grew the engineering team from 5 to 100 people as a head of engineering" and so on. Numbers like "made the api 10 times faster", "reduced ETL pipeline runtime from hours to minutes" feel almost arbitrary. You can justify them just fine, but still. But perhaps I am just biased by the AI-generated stuff, that's all.