Job seekers often notice the same postings listed for months on end. Are these truly open positions—or “evergreen postings”?
An evergreen posting is a job listing kept active indefinitely, either because the company expects ongoing need for the role, wants to continuously collect candidate resumes, or maintain a talent pipeline. Unlike a traditional job ad that closes once a position is filled, evergreen postings remain live even if there’s no immediate hiring intent.
It’s helpful to contrast this with the concept of “ghost jobs”—listings for roles that never genuinely existed or are no longer active. Ghost jobs are often posted without any real intention to hire, existing more as placeholders or signals than real openings.
The difference is subtle but important: evergreen postings often intend to support future hiring, whereas ghost jobs are typically inactive or deceptive in nature.
At its core, an evergreen job posting (also called an evergreen requisition) is a role that remains active indefinitely—not because the employer is in no hurry, but because they expect recurring needs or want to maintain a talent pool. Instead of posting, closing, and reposting when a vacancy opens, employers leave that job listing open continuously so they can collect applications over time.
Because evergreen postings are intentionally perpetual, they blur the lines between “jobs actively hiring now” and “jobs likely hiring in the future.”
While evergreen postings occupy a gray zone, they differ meaningfully from ghost jobs. A ghost job is a listing that appears live but is not actually meant to be filled (or never was). Ghost jobs may exist purely to attract visibility, harvest resumes, inflate company image, or monitor market interest.
Here’s a quick comparison:
| Feature | Evergreen Posting | Ghost Job |
|---|---|---|
|
Intent to hire at some point |
Usually yes
|
Often no
|
|
Posting remains open |
Yes by design |
Yes by deception or oversight |
|
Applicant pipeline value |
High (to fill future roles) |
Primarily resume collection or optics |
|
Communication to candidates |
Ideally transparent “rolling basis” |
Often vague, no updates, or silent |
Evergreen postings don’t always carry that stigma—if handled transparently, they can be a legitimate forward-looking hiring strategy—but the overlap in appearance with ghost listings is what makes them controversial.
Evergreen postings tend to be most common in sectors with high turnover, recurring demand, or large-scale staffing needs. Here are a few examples:
In these industries, an employer’s cost of repeatedly posting and recruiting from scratch can be steep—so the continuous-job listing model offers a strategic edge.
If evergreen postings feel a little mysterious from the applicant side, that’s partly because they represent a strategic, proactive shift in how companies think about hiring. Instead of reacting to a vacancy, organizations try to stay ahead of the curve. Here are the main reasons they do it — and how each reason plays out in practice.
Because turnover is both predictable and frequent, keeping a perpetual posting lets the employer react faster and avoid gaps in coverage or lost productivity.
One of the core rationales is pipeline building: collecting resumes over time and maintaining a pool of partially vetted candidates ready to be tapped when new roles open.
When a role becomes available, the employer can dip into this pool rather than launching ads anew — ideal for scaling or reacting to sudden growth spurts.
Beyond reacting to turnover, employers often have growth expectations. As organizations expand, reorganize, or launch new initiatives, they want to be ready.
In many organizations, the cost (in time, advertising, coordination) of posting, closing, and reposting is nontrivial. Keeping roles open minimizes that overhead — one posting can serve multiple hiring cycles.
Evergreen postings also play a marketing and branding role. Keeping certain roles publicly visible over time helps maintain the company’s presence in job searches, bolsters perception of growth, and communicates to potential applicants “we’re always hiring.”
Additionally, continuous listings can provide insight to recruiting teams — which job titles or skills generate more traffic or applications — helping inform recruitment marketing decisions downstream.
Of course, the rationale is strong, but doing this well requires operational discipline:
While evergreen postings serve a clear business purpose, they also stir up significant debate—especially among job seekers who feel burned by them. The controversy comes down to one big question: Is this job really open, or am I wasting my time?
From the applicant’s perspective, the experience can be frustrating. You see the same listing online for months, apply, and never hear back. For many candidates, this pattern looks indistinguishable from a “fake job” or ghost listing.
Surveys back up this skepticism. A 2023 Clarify Capital study found that over 40% of job seekers believe many postings are never actually filled and that companies sometimes keep ads live without hiring intent. Similarly, a Resume Builder report showed that about 27% of hiring managers admitted to posting job openings they weren’t actively hiring for.
This creates a perception gap: what the employer sees as pipeline-building, the job seeker may see as wasted effort.
Not all evergreen postings are deceptive. In fact, they can be highly legitimate—especially in industries with constant demand for talent, such as:
For these employers, evergreen postings aren’t “fake.” They’re simply a mechanism to ensure they can respond quickly to churn or expansion.
The problem is the blurry line between transparency and misrepresentation. A well-managed evergreen posting may clearly note “applications accepted on a rolling basis” or “this role is frequently open.” A poorly managed one, however, looks no different from a ghost job—long-standing, generic, with no communication to applicants.
This gray area is why evergreen postings have a credibility problem. According to a SHRM article on job seeker frustrations, the lack of clarity around whether a role is “real” erodes trust in employers and the job market overall.
Evergreen postings aren’t inherently fake—but without clear signals from employers, they can feel that way to candidates. The result: a hiring tool that can either build a pipeline of talent or damage employer trust, depending on how it’s handled.
Not all evergreen postings are smoke and mirrors. In fact, many are genuine attempts to stay ahead of hiring needs. The challenge for job seekers is knowing how to tell the difference. Here are some signs that an evergreen posting is more likely to represent a real opportunity—if not immediately, then soon.
Industries like warehousing, healthcare support, customer service, and staffing agencies experience churn by nature. For example, the average annual turnover rate in warehousing hovers near 37%, compared to an overall U.S. average closer to 19%. If a posting is tied to one of these roles, there’s a high likelihood that the employer will have a genuine need sooner rather than later.
Legitimate evergreen postings often include phrasing like “applications accepted on a rolling basis,” “hiring ongoing,” or “frequently hiring for this position.” This is a transparent way of telling candidates: we may not need you today, but we’ll need people like you soon.
Research from Indeed shows that job ads with clearer, more specific language see up to 29% higher application rates than those with vague or generic descriptions. Clarity benefits both sides.
While job boards aggregate postings from across the internet, the most trustworthy evergreen listings are those that also appear on the company’s official careers page. A CareerBuilder survey found that 79% of candidates go directly to a company’s website after seeing a job on a board. If the role is missing from the employer’s own site, it could be outdated—or never meant to be filled at all.
Legitimate evergreen postings often set expectations. They might say:
These details help applicants understand what to expect and reduce the perception of being “ghosted.” According to SHRM, 47% of job seekers rank communication and clear timelines as the most important factor in their application experience.
If you encounter an evergreen posting in a high-turnover industry, with transparent language, a presence on the company’s careers site, and a defined review cadence, chances are the posting is legitimate. It may not represent an immediate hire, but it’s not just “collecting resumes” for the sake of it—it’s building a bench of talent the company expects to draw from.
While some evergreen postings are transparent and practical, others edge dangerously close to “ghost job” territory. For job seekers, these listings can waste valuable time and fuel frustration. Here are some signs that an evergreen posting may not be as genuine as it looks.
It’s one thing for a company to keep a listing open—it’s another for the role to sit untouched for half a year. Job ads that never change in wording, refresh date, or details may not reflect active hiring needs. A 2023 Resume Builder survey revealed that 1 in 3 hiring managers admitted to posting jobs they weren’t actively filling, often leaving them up for months at a time. If the listing looks frozen in time, proceed with caution.
Legitimate evergreen postings often say “applications reviewed monthly” or “ongoing hiring cycles.” When a posting includes no indication of when or how candidates will be reviewed, it’s harder to trust the employer is actively considering applicants. In fact, a SHRM survey found that 47% of job seekers cite lack of communication as their #1 frustration in the hiring process. If there’s no clear path forward, it may signal the job is more placeholder than opportunity.
Be wary of listings that look like they’ve been copied and pasted endlessly. A job ad with vague duties, no department specified, or the same description across multiple roles may not represent a real opening.
Generic language doesn’t just discourage applicants—it can also be a signal that the role isn’t attached to an actual, immediate vacancy.
Not every long-standing job ad is a scam, but the warning signs are real. A stale listing, vague process, or repeated applicant complaints should make candidates think twice. Evergreen postings that fail to communicate clearly can cross the line from strategic hiring into misleading optics.
Evergreen postings can be confusing, but they don’t have to be dead ends. By approaching them strategically, you can use these listings to your advantage—without wasting time or energy on roles that may not be hiring immediately.
Submitting an application isn’t wasted effort, but you should go in knowing that the process may move slowly. Evergreen postings are often meant to build a pipeline, which means you might not hear back right away.
Think of these applications as planting seeds—you may not see results today, but they could pay off when the employer is ready.
Don’t rely solely on the posting itself. If you see an evergreen job that interests you, reach out to current employees, recruiters, or connections on LinkedIn to ask whether the role is actively open.
A quick message to someone inside the company can confirm whether you’re applying to an active need—or just a standing pipeline.
If you do land an interview, don’t be afraid to ask directly:
These questions signal professionalism and help you assess how seriously the company is pursuing candidates for that posting.
Even if you apply to an evergreen role, make sure it’s not your only option. Keep applying to postings tied to specific, time-bound openings. Treat evergreen postings as a supplement to your search, not the centerpiece.
Evergreen postings aren’t inherently bad—but they require a smart approach. Apply when interested, confirm activity through networking, clarify in conversations, and keep your applications broad. This way, you’re prepared to seize real opportunities without getting stuck chasing jobs that might not exist today.
While evergreen postings can serve as a smart recruiting strategy, employers also carry a responsibility to use them ethically and transparently. Done well, they help both sides. Done poorly, they erode trust and damage the employer brand.
The number one factor that separates legitimate evergreen postings from misleading ones is clear communication. Employers should state up front whether the posting is tied to an immediate hire or a rolling pipeline. Phrasing such as “applications accepted on an ongoing basis” or “this posting supports frequent hiring needs” can prevent candidates from assuming the job is a “ghost” role.
Building a pipeline shouldn’t come at the cost of leaving candidates in the dark. If employers are going to collect resumes continuously, they also need processes in place to manage applicant expectations—whether that’s automated responses, timeline disclosures, or recruiter outreach.
Even if the role itself is ongoing, the posting should never look stale. Employers should update descriptions periodically, refresh posting dates, and, when possible, provide context about the frequency of hires (e.g., “we typically onboard new cohorts quarterly”).
At its best, an evergreen posting can communicate growth, stability, and opportunity. At its worst, it can signal disorganization or dishonesty. Employers who fail to clarify intent risk alienating top talent and undermining long-term recruitment goals.
The reality is that job seekers talk: nearly 72% of candidates share their recruiting experiences online through reviews or social media. That means transparency isn’t just good practice—it’s a reputational safeguard.
Evergreen postings can be powerful, but only if managed responsibly. Transparency, communication, and regular updates ensure that candidates view the practice as strategic—not deceptive. In today’s competitive labor market, being upfront is more than courtesy—it’s a competitive advantage.
Evergreen postings aren’t inherently “fake”—but without transparency, they can feel that way to job seekers. For candidates, the key is to view them as potential opportunities, not guarantees. Submitting an application can be worthwhile, but expectations should be managed, and networking remains essential to uncover which roles are truly open.
For employers, the responsibility lies in clarity and communication. By being upfront about whether a role is a rolling pipeline or an immediate need, employers can build trust, protect their brand, and still benefit from pipeline-building strategies.
The bottom line: Evergreen postings can be powerful for connecting talent with opportunity—but only when both sides approach them with eyes wide open.
Whether you’re a job seeker navigating confusing postings or an employer trying to recruit responsibly, Staffing by Starboard can help. We specialize in connecting candidates with real opportunities and guiding companies toward transparent, effective hiring strategies.
Not exactly. Evergreen postings are meant to collect applications for roles that recur often or will likely open in the future. Ghost jobs, by contrast, are listings with little or no intention of ever being filled. The difference is intent: one is proactive pipeline-building, the other is misleading.
Yes—but manage your expectations. Evergreen postings can lead to real opportunities, but hiring timelines may be longer. According to Lever, the average time-to-hire is 36 days (Lever), but evergreen roles often extend well beyond that. Treat your application as planting a seed, not a guaranteed offer.
Look for signs like:
Often, it’s about building a pipeline. Industries with high churn need a steady flow of applicants, so they keep certain roles posted year-round. Some employers also anticipate future growth and don’t want to restart from scratch every time they need new hires.
Warning signs include:
Transparency is key. Employers should clarify whether they’re hiring immediately or on a rolling basis, update postings regularly, and communicate timelines. According to SHRM, 47% of candidates rank communication as the most important part of the hiring process (SHRM).