What if candidates could publicly call out your company for ghosting them? Well, now that is the reality. A newly launched website called Did They Ghost You? gives job seekers a place to report employers who stop communicating with them after an interview. And apparently, there is no shortage of stories to tell. Within weeks of launching, the site had more than 2,000 companies listed, including some of the biggest names in technology, finance, and media. The website may have started partly as a joke, but it highlights a very real issue for employers. Candidates are paying attention to how companies communicate throughout the hiring process, and they now have more ways than ever to share those experiences.

While recruiters and hiring managers may have legitimate reasons for delays like busy schedules, changing priorities, or waiting on a hiring decision, a prolonged silence can leave candidates with a negative impression of the organization. In a competitive job market, as leaders and HR professionals, we may want to ask ourselves: Could the way we communicate with candidates be affecting our employer brand more than we realize?

So, what exactly does “ghosting” look like for an employer and when does a simple delay become a communication problem? Ghosting can occur in many different ways in the hiring process, but the most common situations are when an applicant receives no response after submitting an application, a recruiter stops responding after an initial conversation, or a candidate completes multiple interviews and then receives no update. Sometimes candidates will then find the position is reposted, closed, or the candidate is told to expect a decision by a certain date but never hears back. Ghosting is even reported at the onboarding stage when communication stops after assessments, reference checks, or significant time investment.

If ghosting can leave such a negative impression on candidates, why does it happen in the first place? In many cases, it may have less to do with an intentional decision to ignore candidates and more to do with the realities and potential shortcomings of a company’s process. Potential causes could be high applicant volume and overwhelmed recruiting teams. Applicants and their recruiters may be waiting on hiring-manager delays in providing feedback or decisions. They may promise a timeline that is dependent on other approvals and delays could occur due to budget restraints, organizational changes, or alternative priorities. In addition, talent acquisition specialists may be managing too many open positions and candidates, or they may not have a clearly defined structure of ownership of candidate communication. Recruiters with too much on their plates could result in poor use of an organization’s ATS/CRM system capabilities which can directly contribute to the communication the candidate receives. Lastly, managers and recruiters may have a tendency to avoid difficult conversations. Sometimes, it is simply easier to delay an uncomfortable rejection than deliver bad news. Although we know that is not fair to the candidate and hope that staff will not take this approach, it may still be happening just the same.

There are also real business costs to going silent on candidates. Recent data shows how common and frustrating this experience has become. A June 2026 Resume Builder survey of 1,000 recent college graduates found that 68% had been ghosted after an interview, and 34% reported having a job offer rescinded after accepting it. While this survey focused on recent graduates, it reflects a broader concern for employers: Poor communication can damage the candidate experience and, by extension, the employer brand. Candidates often view the hiring process as a reflection of the organization itself. Even when they are not selected, they may still become customers, refer others, apply again in the future, or share their experience with their network. Monster notes that applicants are twice as likely to become customers of a brand after a positive recruitment experience, even if they are not hired. In today’s environment, those experiences are also more visible. Websites such as Did They Ghost You? give candidates a public place to share their frustration, meaning what may once have been a private communication breakdown can now become part of a company’s online reputation. Poor communication can also make recruiting harder by causing strong candidates to accept other opportunities or avoid applying altogether.

HR can reduce the risk of candidate ghosting by building clear communication expectations into the hiring process from the start. Candidates should know when they can expect to hear back, and if that timeline changes, someone should be responsible for communicating the update. It is also important to define ownership internally so recruiters and hiring managers are not assuming the other person is handling candidate follow-up. A documented process can help create consistency and accountability. Technology can also support better communication when used appropriately, such as automating early-stage rejection notices, setting reminders, or using an ATS or CRM to trigger candidate updates. At the same time, late-stage candidates who have completed multiple interviews or invested significant time in the process should receive more personalized communication. Finally, HR should monitor the overall candidate experience by tracking complaints, reviewing feedback, and watching for recurring themes on employer-review sites such as Glassdoor. If ghosting or other poor hiring practices appear to be a pattern, HR should look at whether the issue is related to workload, process gaps, technology, or accountability and take steps to correct it.

Ghosting may be an easy habit to fall into when hiring gets busy, but it can leave a lasting impression on candidates and, ultimately, your employer brand. You do not need to respond instantly to every applicant or provide lengthy explanations for every hiring decision. Not every hiring decision can happen quickly; hiring processes take time, and business needs can change. But candidates should not have to wonder whether they have been forgotten or the status of their application. Silence is still a message and a timely update, even when there is no final decision, takes little effort and can make a meaningful difference. You may not be able to offer every candidate a job, but you can make sure every candidate knows where they stand and be intentional about how you communicate with them.

Sources: hrbrew.com; monster.com; linkedin.com; sfgate.com; cbs17.com