> In all honesty the smart practice is to search for a new job immediately after you get one and keep updating your backlog of potential jobs (you don't have to apply, just keep them in mind)

This is certainly the advice given if you're ruthlessly careerist, and it can be a good strategy if you're still looking for that dream role, but it can also backfire on you.

As someone who often needs to recruit I pay fairly close attention to the stability of an applicant's career. In general I don't like to see a lot of job-hopping unless it's in the early years of someone's career, because it can be hard to find a role you really like. Periods of contracting are another exception, although some evidence of stable employment for some period is also beneficial.

Recruiting is hugely important, but sucks a lot of time and effort from a team, and incurs significant costs, both direct and indirect. If you've been working for a decade and have never been in a job for more than 2 years that can be a pretty big turn-off.

You could of course argue that because I'd prefer to recruit people who will stay for more than 2 years, the roles I have available may not suit you.

Bottom line: there's a trade-off you're potentially making by behaving this way, which is fine, but it's important you understand that fact. Still, it's a good idea to start looking for a new job before you've started to hate the old one (bitter experience speaking right here): leave on a high because it'll probably set you up much better for the future.

I don't think the suggestion was to job hop. My read was that they were suggesting to just always be aware of the market (hence the don't have to apply line) so that you can jump at the perfect opportunity if it comes up, or if something happens to change at your current employer that would require you to search for another job, you're already ahead of the game.