Choose from a wide range of NEWCV resume templates and customize your NEWCV design with a single click.
Use ATS-optimised Resume and resume templates that pass applicant tracking systems. Our Resume builder helps recruiters read, scan, and shortlist your Resume faster.
Use professional field-tested resume templates that follow the exact Resume rules employers look for.
Create Resume
Use professional field-tested resume templates that follow the exact Resume rules employers look for.
Create ResumeIf you're trying to convert a Google Docs resume into an ATS resume, the goal is not simply exporting your file as a PDF or changing fonts. The real objective is making sure your resume can be accurately read by Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS), parsed into recruiter databases, and scanned without formatting errors.
Many Google Docs resumes look visually clean but fail in real hiring workflows because of hidden formatting issues: tables, columns, text boxes, icons, headers, graphic elements, or layouts that ATS systems interpret incorrectly.
To convert a Google Docs resume into an ATS-friendly resume:
•Remove multi-column layouts
• Eliminate tables and text boxes
• Use standard section headings
• Replace graphics and icons with text
• Simplify formatting structure
• Use ATS-safe fonts
• Export correctly
• Test parsing behavior before applying
The challenge is that ATS compatibility is no longer just about passing software. Modern hiring systems also influence recruiter workflow, search visibility, and candidate discoverability. A resume that parses cleanly creates less friction throughout the hiring process.
This guide breaks down how conversion actually works—and where most people unknowingly sabotage their resume.
Google Docs itself is not the problem.
The issue is how people use it.
Many resume templates found in Google Docs galleries or downloaded online prioritize visual design over machine readability.
Common Google Docs resume elements that create ATS failures include:
•Two-column layouts
• Tables for organizing content
• Text boxes
• Skill bars and charts
• Icons beside contact information
• Headers and footers containing important details
• Decorative graphics
• Embedded images
• Custom section formatting
These layouts may look polished to humans.
ATS systems process resumes differently.
Recruiters see a formatted document.
ATS software sees a document structure made of text hierarchy, sections, and parsing rules.
When formatting introduces ambiguity, information can become misplaced.
Typical parsing failures:
•Job titles placed under company names incorrectly
• Dates detached from experience
• Skills appearing in wrong sections
• Missing phone numbers
• Contact information disappearing
Understanding the workflow matters.
Most candidates imagine ATS software simply scanning for keywords.
Modern systems do more.
Typical ATS workflow:
•Upload document
• Convert document into structured data
• Identify contact information
• Detect sections
• Extract skills
• Analyze job history
• Associate dates with positions
• Index candidate profile into recruiter search systems
The parsing stage is where formatting problems create downstream issues.
If your Google Docs resume converts poorly, recruiters may search databases later and never find you because your skills or experience were indexed incorrectly.
ATS optimization is partly keyword optimization—but heavily about structural readability.
Many candidates assume their resume was rejected for qualifications when the issue was formatting integrity.
You likely need conversion if your resume includes any of the following:
•Two columns
• Resume sidebars
• Visual timeline layouts
• Headshot photos
• Skill ratings with stars or bars
• Graphics
• Icons beside labels
• Headers with contact information
• Complex tables
• Fancy design elements
Even resumes downloaded from "ATS-friendly template" websites frequently include hidden structural problems.
Many templates are optimized for appearance rather than parsing reliability.
This is the highest-impact change.
Multi-column resumes remain one of the largest ATS parsing problems.
Recruiters can visually understand:
Left side = skills
Right side = work experience
ATS systems frequently cannot.
Single-column layouts create predictable reading order.
Recommended structure:
Name
Phone
Email
LinkedIn
Professional Summary
Skills
Work Experience
Education
Certifications
Projects
Optional Additional Sections
This sequence aligns with how many ATS systems map information.
Simple structures outperform visually complex resumes.
ATS software recognizes familiar labels.
Use:
•Professional Summary
• Work Experience
• Skills
• Education
• Certifications
• Projects
Avoid:
•Career Journey
• My Story
• Expertise Snapshot
• Professional Highlights Hub
Creative headings may look modern but create ambiguity.
Recruiters skim quickly and ATS software uses recognizable patterns.
Standard labels reduce friction.
Tables are one of the biggest Google Docs resume mistakes.
People commonly use tables for:
•Skill organization
• Contact information alignment
• Date placement
• Multi-column layouts
Parsing systems frequently misread table structures.
Information inside cells may merge or appear out of sequence.
Weak Example
| Marketing | Leadership | Analytics |
ATS may flatten or scramble this structure.
Good Example
Skills
•Marketing Strategy
• Leadership
• Analytics
• SEO
• CRM Systems
Simple text consistently performs better.
Visual design trends often hurt ATS reliability.
Common examples:
📞 phone icons
✉ email icons
LinkedIn logos
Location symbols
Some systems ignore symbols.
Others misinterpret them.
Instead write:
Phone: 555-555-5555
Email: example@email.com
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/name
Text clarity wins.
Highly decorative fonts create inconsistencies across systems.
Safe choices:
•Arial
• Calibri
• Helvetica
• Georgia
• Times New Roman
• Aptos
Recommended size:
•Body: 10–12 pt
• Headings: 12–14 pt
Avoid:
•Script fonts
• Highly stylized fonts
• Unusual typography
Readability affects recruiter speed as well.
Date inconsistency creates parsing confusion.
Keep dates standardized.
Weak Example
Summer Twenty Twenty–Present
Good Example
June 2023 – Present
Or:
06/2023 – Present
Maintain one consistent format throughout the document.
A major misconception:
ATS optimization ≠ stuffing keywords.
Keyword stuffing often damages readability.
Instead:
Align your experience language with actual job descriptions.
Example:
If job postings repeatedly mention:
•Project management
• Cross-functional collaboration
• CRM implementation
Integrate those naturally within experience descriptions.
ATS systems increasingly analyze context rather than isolated keywords.
Recruiters also reject resumes that read unnaturally.
Many users believe:
Google Docs → PDF = ATS-safe
Not always.
Export quality matters.
Some PDFs become image-based.
Others embed formatting layers improperly.
Potential problems:
•Text rendering errors
• Missing metadata
• Incorrect reading order
• Font conversion issues
Unless an employer specifically requests PDF, DOCX often remains safer for ATS compatibility.
Always test both versions.
Before applying:
Copy all resume text.
Paste into plain text editor.
Examples:
•Notepad
• TextEdit in plain text mode
Look for:
•Missing sections
• Broken formatting
• Incorrect order
• Strange spacing
• Merged content
If text becomes chaotic after paste, ATS parsing may struggle too.
This simple workflow catches problems competitors often ignore.
Many resume articles stop at software compatibility.
Recruiters experience additional friction.
Poor formatting slows:
•Resume review speed
• Searchability inside databases
• Candidate comparison
• profile indexing
• hiring pipeline movement
Recruiters often skim hundreds of applications.
Fast readability matters.
Even ATS-compatible resumes lose effectiveness if humans struggle to scan them.
The best resume systems optimize both:
•Machine readability
• Human readability
Not one or the other.
Google Docs works.
But as hiring workflows evolve, users encounter recurring pain points:
•Manual formatting maintenance
• Template inconsistencies
• ATS uncertainty
• design limitations
• repeated editing work
• version management friction
Many users eventually want:
•ATS-safe formatting
• modern design
• AI-assisted optimization
• faster editing workflows
• recruiter readability
• stronger personal branding
This is where specialized platforms increasingly replace document-first workflows.
Platforms like NewCV simplify workflow tradeoffs because users no longer need to choose between:
•ATS compatibility
• professional design
• speed
• personal branding
• readability
Instead of manually repairing formatting after every edit, structured resume systems maintain consistency automatically.
The productivity gain is often larger than users expect.
Before submitting:
•Single-column layout
• No tables
• No text boxes
• Standard headings
• ATS-safe fonts
• Consistent dates
• No graphics
• No icons
• Skills written as text
• Export tested
• Parsing verified
If all items pass, your resume structure is likely ATS-friendly.
Converting a Google Docs resume into an ATS resume is ultimately a workflow problem—not a formatting problem.
Most failures happen because visual templates prioritize aesthetics over structure.
The highest-performing resumes today balance:
•ATS readability
• recruiter scanning speed
• discoverability
• formatting consistency
• usability
Simple structure consistently beats visual complexity.
Your goal is not designing the most impressive resume.
Your goal is creating the least friction between your experience and the hiring process.
Upload Resume
Import from Linkedin
