Did I ever mention how much I don't like doing job applications?
Add me to it. Especially if you have to prepare statements to address selection criteria.
I also loathe online "central" job application submission systems. Not only do they make you double or triple specify a lot of information, but they usually completely stuff up the cohesion between the documentation making up your application. Don't get me started on the systems which require you to put your "cover letter" into a general text field, which completely lacks formatting and the ability to properly add line-returns.
What can you do. Have to go through the pain to get the job, unless you're actually the one being hunted rather than being the hunter. The real problem is being motivated to do it after a while (then going through a spate of doing it and firing off anywhere from a few to a few dozen or a few gross of applications!)
Oh, and when the ad says, "Successful applicants will be contacted; applicants not contacted in eight weeks may assume they were unsuccessful," that really, really annoys me.
I loathe doing applications and then going through the interview process with amateurs who don't know who they want or what skills they need and are too ignorant to get guidance.
First you have to get to an interview. To be honest, someone who can't quite drive the interview can be an advantage as much as it is annoying, unless they start fabricating **** or misrepresenting you. The main reason is that it gives you a chance to drive the interview and your case, as long as you don't overwhelm the interviewer. But if they are really hopeless then so be it.
I had an interview where it felt more like day 1 / orientation at the office than a real test of whether I was good for the position. We discussed heaps about the project, the scope, the deliverables, the timeframe, the stakeholders.... very limited talk about my skills and experience. That was weird. And then I was still short listed......
But it's SO worth the time and effort in tailoring your resume to the role (if you want it). And for me, the CV is a proof of ability to do the job in my team. I use theCV to test ability to do the job & then the interview to validate that and check for team fit. I don't like CVs that make me guess or read between lines to see why the candidate can do the job.
And don't talk to me about typos or Word docs with only Normal style - uugggghhh!!!
It's only worth it
because you really want the position and that's what you usually have to do to get the position. Generic applications that look boilerplate or have been run off a broken Xerox may work for non-professional jobs, but if HR is switched on, for a professional job, it just won't cut it. This applies to both the CV and the cover letter. I certainly don't derive any particular pleasure from the act.
You've just defined what a CV should do, let alone the interview that follows it (after short listing). I don't quite understand why people would make "vague" CVs, though there is a very undefined line between a CV which is too brief and one which is too long, especially if you have a varied or extensive experience track record.
I think when you're in a position to review CVs, your perspective of the job application process changes considerably. Same thing as when you are an examiner or instructor compared to when you were the student being lectured or doing the exams.
Typos for sure are not on; awkward or poor grammar in the cover letter for a position which requires "excellent written and verbal communication skills"... well, you work it out. Not sure what you mean by Word documents with only Normal style. Do you mean... no bolding, no italics, no underlining, no headings or variance in sizes, no formatting at all? Knowing the corporation you work for and the kinds of people you work for and with, it would surprise me that anyone applying to be a prospective colleague or subordinate of yours would dare submit such an unrefined application.