This type of analysis always falls into the trap that assumes there's a global marker that separates good resumes from bad resumes. There's also some extra assumptions like what tool that was used to produce the resume matters. I know LaTeX quite well but use a Word document for my resume.
For me personally, I write my resume in an honest way that reflects what I'd like to show and discuss. It is a teaser for discussions to follow and isn't necessarily meant to tell the whole story, so there's a lot of little short nuggets. I have a lot of detail in the resume, perhaps more than I should and certainly more than recommended by so-called resume experts, but it always seems to work in terms of finding me interesting roles. The thing is that by honestly crafting my resume rather than gamifying it, it filters out roles that aren't a good natural fit for me. And I can always tell when someone would be nice to work with and that there's some shared philosophy because they commented on the non-technical portions of my resume, like my hobbies and inerests, the personality, or my influences (almost all non-technical despite me being in software and engineering) sections.
My resume and experience is weird, but I normally like to find weird roles. The greatest complement Inhave received was that my resume was "interesting", with the connotation of they weren't sure what to think of it but liked it. And I'm just a normal person who looks for interesting roles who probably can't (and doesn't want to be) hired at a FAANG. My Amazon interview was miserable. And it was clear my resume wasn't paid attention to. Would have made it easy to turn down the role if I was offered it, which I wasn't.
For me personally, I write my resume in an honest way that reflects what I'd like to show and discuss. It is a teaser for discussions to follow and isn't necessarily meant to tell the whole story, so there's a lot of little short nuggets. I have a lot of detail in the resume, perhaps more than I should and certainly more than recommended by so-called resume experts, but it always seems to work in terms of finding me interesting roles. The thing is that by honestly crafting my resume rather than gamifying it, it filters out roles that aren't a good natural fit for me. And I can always tell when someone would be nice to work with and that there's some shared philosophy because they commented on the non-technical portions of my resume, like my hobbies and inerests, the personality, or my influences (almost all non-technical despite me being in software and engineering) sections.
My resume and experience is weird, but I normally like to find weird roles. The greatest complement Inhave received was that my resume was "interesting", with the connotation of they weren't sure what to think of it but liked it. And I'm just a normal person who looks for interesting roles who probably can't (and doesn't want to be) hired at a FAANG. My Amazon interview was miserable. And it was clear my resume wasn't paid attention to. Would have made it easy to turn down the role if I was offered it, which I wasn't.