Writing for the screening system and the human
Most applications to larger organisations pass through an applicant tracking system before a person sees them. These parse the document into structured fields, and parsing fails on the layouts designers like most — multiple columns, text in headers and footers, information inside images or text boxes, and unusual section names.
The practical consequences: use a single-column layout, conventional headings ("Experience", "Education", "Skills"), a standard typeface, and put contact details in the body rather than the header. Submit as PDF unless a Word file is requested, and make sure the PDF contains real text rather than an exported image — if you cannot select the text, neither can the parser.
Beware the persistent myth that these systems automatically reject the majority of applications by keyword score. Most rank and surface candidates for a recruiter rather than rejecting outright. The useful response is to mirror the language of the job description where it genuinely describes your experience — not to stuff keywords, and certainly not to hide white text, which is detected and treated as deception.
Achievements rather than duties
The most common weakness is describing responsibilities instead of results. "Responsible for managing social media accounts" tells a reader what the job was; "grew combined following from 8,000 to 45,000 in 14 months, increasing referral traffic 3×" tells them what happened because you were there.
Quantify where you honestly can — amounts, percentages, timeframes, scale, team size. Where numbers are unavailable or confidential, scope and outcome still work: "rewrote the onboarding flow, cutting support tickets about account setup by roughly half". Never invent figures; they are checked more often than people expect, and a fabricated metric that surfaces in an interview ends the process.
Lead each bullet with a strong verb and keep to one or two lines. Tailor the emphasis to each application rather than sending one document everywhere — reordering bullets and adjusting which achievements lead takes ten minutes and matters more than any formatting decision.
Length, contents and what to leave out
One page is the norm for early career and two is entirely acceptable with substantial experience; academic CVs are a separate format with different conventions. Reverse chronological order is expected. Roles from more than 10 to 15 years ago can be compressed to a line or dropped.
Several conventional items are now better omitted. "References available on request" is assumed. A full postal address is unnecessary and a minor privacy risk — a city and country suffices. An objective statement at the top is usually filler; a short professional summary that says what you do and at what level is more useful.
Photographs, date of birth, marital status and nationality should be omitted in the UK, Ireland, the US, Canada and Australia, where including them invites discrimination claims and some employers discard such applications for that reason. In parts of continental Europe and elsewhere, a photograph remains conventional — this is genuinely regional, so follow local practice. Finally, proofread: typographical errors in a document arguing for your attention to detail are the easiest avoidable rejection, and having someone else read it catches what you no longer see.