How Limist Scores Remote Job Boards

The model

Four weighted questions.

1. Moderation and verification — 35%

We review visible product statements, listing structure, employer signals and how much provenance work remains for the candidate. A score is not an audit of every vacancy.

2. Listing clarity — 25%

Remote geography, employment type, salary context, posting date and application destination should help a candidate make a decision before leaving the page.

3. Discovery quality — 25%

Inventory and filters matter, but duplicates, stale results and broad matching reduce practical value. Limist rewards relevance over raw count.

4. Candidate alignment — 15%

Access cost, alerts, workflow, occupational breadth and remote-specific focus affect whether a board can sustain a real search.

Evidence and update policy.

Limist begins with publicly observable product behavior and platform-published information. Editors compare those signals with a consistent rubric, record the review date and revise the page when a material product change alters the conclusion.

Overall scores are deliberately secondary to the dimension scores and written rationale. When a user's location, profession or budget changes the decision, the page should say so.

How a score changes

A new filter alone may not move a board. A documented change in verification practice, remote-location disclosure, access model or inventory provenance can. Editors should update the rationale before changing the number so readers can see why the judgment moved.

Limits

Inventory changes daily. Some features require accounts or paid access. Limist does not inspect every listing, conduct a representative user survey or audit a platform's internal moderation process. The index is a transparent editorial judgment, not laboratory measurement.