Ask HN: Besides technical interviews, how would you want to be evaluated?

If a third-party recruiter is involved, they will get in contact with a developer that they deem to be sellable. Once they've got his/her details, they'll pass them on to an employer, who will then interview them for the role.

The flaws with this approach are:

1. The recruiter doesn't know if you're any good or not. They probably don't care, but a good developer can be sold for a high commission.

2. The interviewee has to interview when it is convenient for the employer

3. The employer has to run a ton of interviews to find a viable candidate, and (probably) come up with a proper interview process to replace their crappy one.

If, instead of having a skills-based interview with the employer, you had one with the recruiter, who would only take you on as a client if you matches a certain level of skill/talent, in theory everyone's problems are solved.

Recruiter: Adds real value to the developer, can sell a provable talent to a company quickly, and ideally with no worry about commission being lost by an employer rejecting an obvious dud.

Developer: Gets to "interview" whenever is convenient for them. Can be evaluated in multiple ways (take home test, face-to-face interview, etc), and can be given real technical feedback as the interview is not for employment, but to sign up for a service.

Employer: Can hold a shorter interview process, and get someone in quickly.

In terms of actual technical interviews, there are so many different ways of doing them that all I ever really want from an employer is some heads-up on what I'll be asked. Interviews are convenient at the best of times, so if I'm going to try and make time when I should be working I want to at least be prepared for the experience.

In fact it's the opposite since it favors nepotism and disadvantages people from historically disadvantaged backgrounds. This is the same reason CA introduced the recent law prohibiting employers from asking about salary history.

But what is a "reference"? Often, it's a free-form phone call from the hiring manager to a person you've previously worked with. I think there's a lot of room to improve LinkedIn's "recommendations" feature--they clearly de-prioritized it, as well as endorsements.

In a nutshell, I want my social proof to precede me in my job search.

Why do fizz buzz when you can get several of your friends to confirm "this person can do fizz buzz, and also these things that you are expressly hiring for."

1. People can lie in support of their friends, or be bad judges of ability. A project manager might vouch that this guy is godlike when the reality is that they've just been working late whenever the boss is around and hacks everything together clumsily.

2. Some people don't want their best employees to leave, so they won't want to give a strong recommendation to someone, especially if that person is currently employed.

3. Whatever circumstances that causes one to leave a job might not put them on the best terms.

I feel that recommendations are sometimes like asking someone's ex about their character.