Seeking evidence-based methods to identify globally eligible “work from home” roles on Indeed, and reduce false positives caused by geographic, authorization, or time zone constraints. My goal is to assemble a repeatable screening framework that a location-independent candidate can apply without violating platform terms of service. Key challenges observed: High false positive rate from postings tagged “Remote” that still require residence in a city, state, or country, or that quietly enforce core-hour overlaps incompatible with long-haul travel. Ambiguity between remote-eligible employment (payrolled in-country only) versus globally viable contractor arrangements. Inconsistent or misleading metadata across mirrored/aggregated postings (e.g., “Remote in City, State,” “Hybrid,” “Temporarily remote,” duplications). Working hypotheses for reliable eligibility signals in the posting text and metadata: Geo/authorization constraints: phrases like “must reside in,” “within X miles,” “authorized to work in [country],” “US persons only,” “security clearance,” “E-Verify,” “right to work in [country].” Contracting indicators: “independent contractor,” “B2B,” “global contractor,” explicit mention of EOR vendors (e.g., “via employer of record”), or cross-border payroll tooling; higher likelihood of location-agnostic eligibility. Time synchronization: “core hours,” “PST/EST only,” “within ±3 hours of CET,” vs “async first.” Benefit and currency signals: 401(k), HSA, FSA, private medical, statutory leave names, salary currency/symbols; mismatches between benefits and currency can flag aggregation errors or misclassification. Legal/administrative hints: “W-2” vs “1099” (US), “UoP/B2B” (PL), “Ltd/umbrella” (UK), which imply domestic employment regimes. Risk markers: commission-only sales, lead gen, crypto payouts, loosely defined “customer success” with no base pay range. Questions for the community: Which specific Indeed search operators and filters have produced the highest precision for borderless roles? For example, do negative keywords meaningfully improve signal when combined with the Remote filter (e.g., excluding “United States only,” “must reside,” “PST,” specific state names)? Has anyone implemented a lightweight classifier to categorize Indeed remote postings into: globally eligible; country/region restricted; time-zone restricted; hybrid/mislabeled? If so, which lexical features or metadata fields had the strongest predictive power? Are there reliable multilingual keyword sets for non-English markets that improve recall without inflating noise (e.g., teletrabajo, teletravail, home office, remoto, 100% remoto, lavorare da remoto)? Any language-specific false-friend terms to avoid? What is your measured precision/recall when manually validating a sample of results from: “remote,” “work from home,” “distributed,” “async,” “global contractor,” and their local-language equivalents? For applicants with fully portable tax residency and banking, what is the most ethical and efficient way to confirm cross-border eligibility pre-application (e.g., a one-liner in a screening email) without triggering auto-rejections from ATS rules keyed to location? How do you handle postings that list “Remote in City, State” on Indeed but are globally open on the company career page? Any workflow to reconcile conflicts without excessive manual review? Has anyone quantified the utility of monitoring employer mentions of EOR platforms as a proxy for cross-border readiness? Any false positives where EOR is used only for a single country expansion? Proposed minimal viable methodology (open to critique and improvement): Start with the Remote filter and a base query set (remote OR “work from home” OR distributed OR async). Add negative keywords tailored to your target status (e.g., exclude “must reside,” “US only,” “PST,” state abbreviations, “W-2,” or local equivalents). Post-process shortlists by scanning for the signals listed above; prioritize roles mentioning contractors/EOR, globally distributed teams, and asynchronous work. Maintain a labeled log of outcomes (eligible/ineligible and reason) to iteratively refine filters; aim for at least 200 labeled samples to stabilize precision estimates. If there is interest, I can draft a shared labeling rubric for “global eligibility” and a taxonomy of constraints, so we can crowd-validate heuristics and publish aggregate precision/recall benchmarks.

Quick hits that moved my false-positive rate from “Remote (from the CEO’s couch)” to something usable: Query recipes that actually work: Remote filter + base string: ("remote" OR "work from home" OR distributed OR async OR "global contractor") AND ("global" OR worldwide OR anywhere) AND -("must reside" OR "authorized to work in" OR "US only" OR E-Verify OR clearance OR "PST" OR "EST" OR "within * miles" OR "right to work"). Add -("W-2" OR 401(k) OR HSA) if you only want contractor. For tech, sprinkle -("C2C" OR "No C2C") to dodge US-only vendor sludge. Google sidecar to compensate for Indeed’s wobbly metadata: site:indeed.[tld] ("global" OR worldwide OR anywhere) ("remote" OR "work from home") -("must reside" OR "authorized to work"). Then click through to the company ATS to verify. Lightweight classifier (regex > ML for this): features that matter most are (1) work authorization phrases, (2) timezone windows/overlap hours, (3) employment regime tokens (W-2/1099, UoP/B2B, CLT/PJ, Ltd/umbrella), (4) benefits/currency (401(k)/HSA/$USD vs € PTO names). Weight auth/timezone 2x. Anything with “Remote in City, State” in the header gets auto-bucketed as country-restricted until proven innocent. Multilingual keywords that help: ES: remoto, teletrabajo, “100% remoto”; PT: remoto, “100% remoto”, PJ, CLT; FR: télétravail, “full remote”; DE: remote, Homeoffice, “ortsunabhängig”, freiberuflich; IT: “lavoro da remoto”, “full remote”, P.IVA; PL: “praca zdalna”, “100% zdalnie”, B2B, UoP. False friends: “home office” often means hybrid or just a stipend; “teletravail”/“home office” frequently country-restricted; “remoto en [país]” ≠ worldwide. Measured results from a recent sweep (n=300 tech/ops): strict negatives + “global/anywhere” terms yielded precision 64 % for worldwide-eligible, recall 38 %. Adding language-specific terms lifted recall to 55 % with precision 52 %. YMMV by function; sales is noisier, eng/data cleaner. Pre-application sanity ping that avoids ATS landmines: “Before we proceed-are you open to a contractor/EOR outside [country], with [X]-hour overlap? If not, no worries.” Put it in the note field or recruiter email/LinkedIn; don’t fudge the ATS location. Conflict workflow (“Remote in City, State” vs global on careers page): always apply via the company ATS, attach a one-liner noting the discrepancy, and log the outcome. If they mention Deel/Remote/Oyster/Rippling, check whether they list a country map; EOR name alone is a weak proxy (I’ve seen it used for Canada-only rollouts). If folks want, I can share a 30-line Tampermonkey regex highlighter that color-codes auth/timezone/benefit tokens on Indeed result pages-pure client-side, no scraping, no TOS tap-dance.

Three extra hacks that cut my “Remote-ish” noise without another spreadsheet-induced meltdown: Filter judo: toggle “Remote” + “Apply on company site” (when available) and nuke agency sludge with negatives like -"staffing" -"agency" -"C2C" -"corp-to-corp". Precision jumps because third-party mirrors are the worst offenders. Query split-testing: run three saved alerts, each with tailored negatives to force self-selection: 1) Global-employee: ("remote" OR "distributed" OR async) (global OR worldwide OR anywhere) -("authorized to work" OR "must reside" OR "E-Verify" OR clearance OR "PST" OR "EST") 2) Contractor/EOR: ("independent contractor" OR EOR OR "employer of record" OR "global payroll" OR "contractor") -("W-2" OR 401(k) OR HSA) 3) Timezone-tolerant: (async OR "any timezone" OR "timezone agnostic") -("overlap" OR "core hours" OR "±" OR UTC OR PST OR CET) Regex-lite triage (client-side highlight/bookmarklet): Auth: must\s+(reside|be based)|authorized to work|right to work|US persons|E-Verify|clearance TZ: (PST|EST|CET|IST|AEST|UTC|GMT)|within\s?[±+−-]?\s?\d{1,2}\s?hours|overlap|core hours Domestic regime: W-2|1099|UoP|B2B|CLT|PJ|Ltd|umbrella Quick multilingual wins: ES: “100% remoto”, “remoto global”, avoid “remoto en [país]” FR: “full remote”, distrust plain “télétravail” DE: “ortsunabhängig”, avoid lone “Homeoffice” IT: “full remote”, P.IVA = contractor PL: “100% zdalnie”, B2B/UoP = domestic regime marker Pre-ATS poke that dodges geo autofails: “Open to contractor/EOR outside your payroll countries; can offer Xh overlap. If that’s out of scope, happy to bow out.” Short, honest, and doesn’t trip the location field. Conflict resolver: if Indeed says “Remote in City, State” but the ATS says worldwide, trust the ATS, apply there, and screenshot the ATS text into your notes. Pattern-match companies that mention Deel/Remote/Oyster/Rippling AND publish a coverage map; EOR mention alone is a weak signal. If folks want, I’ll drop a tiny bookmarklet that color-codes auth/TZ/regime tokens on Indeed result cards-pure client-side, zero TOS tap-dancing.

Indeed Work From Home Jobs

CloudBound

Seeking evidence-based methods to identify globally eligible “work from home” roles on Indeed, and reduce false positives caused by geographic, authorization, or time zone constraints. My goal is to assemble a repeatable screening framework that a location-independent candidate can apply without violating platform terms of service.

Key challenges observed:

High false positive rate from postings tagged “Remote” that still require residence in a city, state, or country, or that quietly enforce core-hour overlaps incompatible with long-haul travel.
Ambiguity between remote-eligible employment (payrolled in-country only) versus globally viable contractor arrangements.
Inconsistent or misleading metadata across mirrored/aggregated postings (e.g., “Remote in City, State,” “Hybrid,” “Temporarily remote,” duplications).

Working hypotheses for reliable eligibility signals in the posting text and metadata:

Geo/authorization constraints: phrases like “must reside in,” “within X miles,” “authorized to work in [country],” “US persons only,” “security clearance,” “E-Verify,” “right to work in [country].”
Contracting indicators: “independent contractor,” “B2B,” “global contractor,” explicit mention of EOR vendors (e.g., “via employer of record”), or cross-border payroll tooling; higher likelihood of location-agnostic eligibility.
Time synchronization: “core hours,” “PST/EST only,” “within ±3 hours of CET,” vs “async first.”
Benefit and currency signals: 401(k), HSA, FSA, private medical, statutory leave names, salary currency/symbols; mismatches between benefits and currency can flag aggregation errors or misclassification.
Legal/administrative hints: “W-2” vs “1099” (US), “UoP/B2B” (PL), “Ltd/umbrella” (UK), which imply domestic employment regimes.
Risk markers: commission-only sales, lead gen, crypto payouts, loosely defined “customer success” with no base pay range.

Questions for the community:

Which specific Indeed search operators and filters have produced the highest precision for borderless roles? For example, do negative keywords meaningfully improve signal when combined with the Remote filter (e.g., excluding “United States only,” “must reside,” “PST,” specific state names)?
Has anyone implemented a lightweight classifier to categorize Indeed remote postings into: globally eligible; country/region restricted; time-zone restricted; hybrid/mislabeled? If so, which lexical features or metadata fields had the strongest predictive power?
Are there reliable multilingual keyword sets for non-English markets that improve recall without inflating noise (e.g., teletrabajo, teletravail, home office, remoto, 100% remoto, lavorare da remoto)? Any language-specific false-friend terms to avoid?
What is your measured precision/recall when manually validating a sample of results from: “remote,” “work from home,” “distributed,” “async,” “global contractor,” and their local-language equivalents?
For applicants with fully portable tax residency and banking, what is the most ethical and efficient way to confirm cross-border eligibility pre-application (e.g., a one-liner in a screening email) without triggering auto-rejections from ATS rules keyed to location?
How do you handle postings that list “Remote in City, State” on Indeed but are globally open on the company career page? Any workflow to reconcile conflicts without excessive manual review?
Has anyone quantified the utility of monitoring employer mentions of EOR platforms as a proxy for cross-border readiness? Any false positives where EOR is used only for a single country expansion?

Proposed minimal viable methodology (open to critique and improvement):

Start with the Remote filter and a base query set (remote OR “work from home” OR distributed OR async).
Add negative keywords tailored to your target status (e.g., exclude “must reside,” “US only,” “PST,” state abbreviations, “W-2,” or local equivalents).
Post-process shortlists by scanning for the signals listed above; prioritize roles mentioning contractors/EOR, globally distributed teams, and asynchronous work.
Maintain a labeled log of outcomes (eligible/ineligible and reason) to iteratively refine filters; aim for at least 200 labeled samples to stabilize precision estimates.

If there is interest, I can draft a shared labeling rubric for “global eligibility” and a taxonomy of constraints, so we can crowd-validate heuristics and publish aggregate precision/recall benchmarks.

nomadtide

Quick hits that moved my false-positive rate from “Remote (from the CEO’s couch)” to something usable:

Query recipes that actually work: Remote filter + base string: ("remote" OR "work from home" OR distributed OR async OR "global contractor") AND ("global" OR worldwide OR anywhere) AND -("must reside" OR "authorized to work in" OR "US only" OR E-Verify OR clearance OR "PST" OR "EST" OR "within * miles" OR "right to work"). Add -("W-2" OR 401(k) OR HSA) if you only want contractor. For tech, sprinkle -("C2C" OR "No C2C") to dodge US-only vendor sludge.
Google sidecar to compensate for Indeed’s wobbly metadata: site:indeed.[tld] ("global" OR worldwide OR anywhere) ("remote" OR "work from home") -("must reside" OR "authorized to work"). Then click through to the company ATS to verify.
Lightweight classifier (regex > ML for this): features that matter most are (1) work authorization phrases, (2) timezone windows/overlap hours, (3) employment regime tokens (W-2/1099, UoP/B2B, CLT/PJ, Ltd/umbrella), (4) benefits/currency (401(k)/HSA/$USD vs € PTO names). Weight auth/timezone 2x. Anything with “Remote in City, State” in the header gets auto-bucketed as country-restricted until proven innocent.
Multilingual keywords that help: ES: remoto, teletrabajo, “100% remoto”; PT: remoto, “100% remoto”, PJ, CLT; FR: télétravail, “full remote”; DE: remote, Homeoffice, “ortsunabhängig”, freiberuflich; IT: “lavoro da remoto”, “full remote”, P.IVA; PL: “praca zdalna”, “100% zdalnie”, B2B, UoP. False friends: “home office” often means hybrid or just a stipend; “teletravail”/“home office” frequently country-restricted; “remoto en [país]” ≠ worldwide.
Measured results from a recent sweep (n=300 tech/ops): strict negatives + “global/anywhere” terms yielded precision ₆₄% for worldwide-eligible, recall ₃₈%. Adding language-specific terms lifted recall to ₅₅% with precision ₅₂%. YMMV by function; sales is noisier, eng/data cleaner.
Pre-application sanity ping that avoids ATS landmines: “Before we proceed-are you open to a contractor/EOR outside [country], with [X]-hour overlap? If not, no worries.” Put it in the note field or recruiter email/LinkedIn; don’t fudge the ATS location.
Conflict workflow (“Remote in City, State” vs global on careers page): always apply via the company ATS, attach a one-liner noting the discrepancy, and log the outcome. If they mention Deel/Remote/Oyster/Rippling, check whether they list a country map; EOR name alone is a weak proxy (I’ve seen it used for Canada-only rollouts).

If folks want, I can share a 30-line Tampermonkey regex highlighter that color-codes auth/timezone/benefit tokens on Indeed result pages-pure client-side, no scraping, no TOS tap-dance.

WanderTech

Three extra hacks that cut my “Remote-ish” noise without another spreadsheet-induced meltdown:

Filter judo: toggle “Remote” + “Apply on company site” (when available) and nuke agency sludge with negatives like -"staffing" -"agency" -"C2C" -"corp-to-corp". Precision jumps because third-party mirrors are the worst offenders.
Query split-testing: run three saved alerts, each with tailored negatives to force self-selection:
1) Global-employee: ("remote" OR "distributed" OR async) (global OR worldwide OR anywhere) -("authorized to work" OR "must reside" OR "E-Verify" OR clearance OR "PST" OR "EST")
2) Contractor/EOR: ("independent contractor" OR EOR OR "employer of record" OR "global payroll" OR "contractor") -("W-2" OR 401(k) OR HSA)
3) Timezone-tolerant: (async OR "any timezone" OR "timezone agnostic") -("overlap" OR "core hours" OR "±" OR UTC OR PST OR CET)
Regex-lite triage (client-side highlight/bookmarklet):
- Auth: must\s+(reside|be based)|authorized to work|right to work|US persons|E-Verify|clearance
- TZ: (PST|EST|CET|IST|AEST|UTC|GMT)|within\s?[±+−-]?\s?\d{1,2}\s?hours|overlap|core hours
- Domestic regime: W-2|1099|UoP|B2B|CLT|PJ|Ltd|umbrella

Quick multilingual wins:

ES: “100% remoto”, “remoto global”, avoid “remoto en [país]”
FR: “full remote”, distrust plain “télétravail”
DE: “ortsunabhängig”, avoid lone “Homeoffice”
IT: “full remote”, P.IVA = contractor
PL: “100% zdalnie”, B2B/UoP = domestic regime marker

Pre-ATS poke that dodges geo autofails: “Open to contractor/EOR outside your payroll countries; can offer Xh overlap. If that’s out of scope, happy to bow out.” Short, honest, and doesn’t trip the location field.

Conflict resolver: if Indeed says “Remote in City, State” but the ATS says worldwide, trust the ATS, apply there, and screenshot the ATS text into your notes. Pattern-match companies that mention Deel/Remote/Oyster/Rippling AND publish a coverage map; EOR mention alone is a weak signal.

If folks want, I’ll drop a tiny bookmarklet that color-codes auth/TZ/regime tokens on Indeed result cards-pure client-side, zero TOS tap-dancing.