What a deal-breaker filter is, and why most job sites don't have one

A ranking signal moves a job up or down. A rule removes it. Job site filters usually work like ranking: a job that breaks your filter can still show if it matches your keywords well. That's why a remote search can show hybrid jobs.

A site that removes jobs shows fewer results, and fewer results look like a worse site. Ranking keeps the list long. Postings also leave fields out: many don't state pay or a workplace type, and a strict rule would have to decide what to do with those.

A deal-breaker is something you would turn down a job for, every time:

• where you can work (remote, or a place);
• your level;
• the kind of role;
• the job type (full-time, contract);
• the lowest pay you'd take;
• companies you never want to see.

Things you'd only prefer, like a stack or a company size, belong in ranking, not in rules.

A good filter is clear about this. If a posting doesn't state pay, a pay rule can't judge it, so the job should pass that rule rather than be dropped on a guess. In winq, a pay deal-breaker drops a job only when its stated salary range tops out below your minimum.

• Filter by hand. Read every result and skip the ones that break your rules. Accurate, slow.
• Use job site filters. Fast, but they are suggestions, so you still read jobs that break them.
• Use winq. Your deal-breakers are rules. A job that breaks one never reaches your list, and every job that passes comes with a written reason.

Is a deal-breaker the same as a filter?

It's a filter that removes jobs instead of reordering them.

What if a job doesn't state pay?

It passes the pay rule. A pay deal-breaker only applies when the posting states a salary range, and only to full-time jobs.

• How to find startup jobs that are actually remote
• Where startups post jobs first
• Startup hiring this week