Thanks for the clarification Chris.  I just find it a little annoying, based on my experience, that a candidate who has been at the same job for 10 years gets priority over a candidate who has an equivalent 10 years of experience, but with different companies.  I understand that employers don't like to see "job-hopping"; however, there are a lot of factors beyond a candidate's control that can affect his/her resume:

• The company he/she worked for might have gone out of business (a lot of experienced DBA's, programmers and other IT folks out here have at least one failed dot-com listed on the resume),
• The company you worked for might have had to "downsize" or outsourced your position,
• You might have a break in employment due to military service, which by law cannot be used as a reason for not hiring (see the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act or USERRA),
• The person might have been doing short-term contract work (very common when the job market is soft and there are no full-time jobs to be had)

Personally I would probably think highly of a candidate with 10 years of employment at two companies over that period.  After all, he/she has:

• Worked in two different organizations with different missions and/or different plans to achieve their missions,
• Dealt with two different sets of managers who probably have different management styles,
• Most likely had varying duties and job responsibilities at each organization,
• Probably been exposed to, and gained experience with, different technology at each job.

Not to knock anyone who was lucky enough to hold onto the same job for 10 years, but all of that (to me at least) adds up to a better "quality" of experience.

Overall, excellent article.  Thanks!