You need to enter a huge amount of finely detailed information into web forms about your work and biographic history. There is no indication how this information is used, looked at or processed. Either you spend a lot of time entering information, most of which is or should already be duplicated on your resume or you have to fudge stuff and then that may or may not effect whether you get an interview or get hired.

It seems that realistic aptitude tests for jobs is more the way to go. A person's work history should be pretty irrelevant if not directly related to a job. A person should not be discriminated against for lack of work history or bad work history if they can actually do the job that they are applying to. In the USA most jobs are "at will." It is trivial to fire a person for any reason if they can not cut it at a job. It is incredibly laborious for the applicant and prospective employer to vet resume, work history and biographic information. Why do employers set up so many barriers for job seekers and ask so many irrelevant questions? Employers would seem to treat the sunk cost of hiring as an "investment" when it is just a sunk cost. They should seek to minimise sunk costs by lowering the irrelevant barriers to entry.

I hate spending up to an hour on an online application, being forced to duplicate the material on my resume in web forms not to know if the application even sees human eyes.

What job I worked in 2017 in a different field or where I lived in 2015 should have no bearing on my ability to do a job.

Detailed aptitude tests are what is called for.