location-language research
How Employers Write Remote Job Locations
Location fields mix legal hiring boundaries, time-zone preferences, office labels, and work-style descriptions. This report shows how the board interprets those signals and gives candidates a repeatable way to resolve ambiguity.
live dataset · September 11, 2026
Normalized eligibility and common source labels
1,277 roles normalize to US only, 235 to Canada only, and 327 to both. Common raw location strings below show why candidates still need the source wording.
| Raw source location | Active roles | Share of inventory |
|---|---|---|
| Remote — United States | 253 | 14% |
| Remote — US | 251 | 14% |
| Remote — Canada | 135 | 7% |
| Remote — USA | 124 | 7% |
| Remote — Remote | 73 | 4% |
| Remote — San Francisco, CA, US; Remote, US | 62 | 3% |
| Remote — United States | Remote | 60 | 3% |
| Remote — United States - Remote | 58 | 3% |
| Remote — U.S. | 48 | 3% |
| Remote — Canada - Remote (ON, AB, BC, or NS Only | 38 | 2% |
One field can carry several meanings
A location string may describe where work happens, where payroll is supported, which office owns the role, or which hours a team needs covered. “Remote — New York” can mean residents of New York, a New York compensation zone, an office association, or a role that is remote within a broader country. The headline alone rarely resolves every interpretation.
The site's normalization looks for explicit remote and region signals so candidates can filter consistently. It preserves the raw source location on the listing because the original wording contains context that a two-label US/Canada field cannot retain.
A hierarchy for reading location language
Treat an explicit country restriction as stronger than a generic remote label. Treat a state or province list as stronger than a broad country label. Treat a description-level exclusion or application question as stronger than a headline. When the statements conflict, assume the narrower rule until the employer confirms otherwise.
Time zones require a separate reading. “Americas hours” may describe collaboration time while employment is worldwide; “North America” may describe the permitted hiring region. Ask whether the term is a schedule preference, residence requirement, or both.
- Work style: remote, hybrid, distributed, or office-based.
- Hiring boundary: country, state, province, or approved list.
- Schedule boundary: time zone or overlap hours.
- Employment condition: authorization, sponsorship, entity, or contractor status.
- Compensation boundary: national or geographic pay zone.
What the live distribution tells us
The snapshot groups active listings by normalized US, Canada, or dual-region eligibility and surfaces recurring raw location labels. It demonstrates how much variety sits behind a simple remote filter. A frequent label is a source convention, not a legal definition shared by every employer.
Because one employer can publish many roles with the same template, a phrase count can be dominated by a few companies. It should guide which terms to recognize during a search, not establish how all remote employers write locations.
A reliable clarification message
When the role is otherwise a strong fit, ask a narrow question before a long interview process: “I am based in [province/state and country]. Does this position support employment from that jurisdiction, and which working-hours and compensation zone would apply?” This gives the employer the details needed to answer without asking for legal advice.
Save the response with the source posting. If the employer confirms a materially different boundary from the published page, candidates can report the discrepancy so the board's normalization can be reviewed.
Why the site avoids state landing pages
A national US label does not prove state-specific eligibility. Creating a page for every state from the same national pool would imply distinctions that the source data does not support and would give users substantially duplicated pages. The site therefore keeps a US/Canada location hub and a distinct Canada view where the underlying eligible inventory differs.
That same principle governs this research: publish only the geographic precision the source can support, state the ambiguity, and point candidates back to the original employer record.
Sources and further reading
continue with live listings
Browse relevant remote jobs
related research