Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

mattermark.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 517 posts

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#311

Post by patrickdavey »

mahyarm wrote: post #207
verbify wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, maybe I'm a poor programmer, but 2 hours seems incredibly unrealistic for: a) Creating a frontend form to submit movies b) Creating the database to store movies c) The 'search to find the movies' feature Maybe I could do it in two hours, but it'd be pretty bad, and there's no point showcasing poor quality code. My favourite was when they asked me to produce examples of things I had coded. Like any other crea…

We only expect you to make what is possible in 2 hours, and we've seen a bunch of similar exercises. It doesn't have to be poor quality, just basic. Usually the UX isn't expected to look nice at all either.

So in 2 hours (according to the article, not this comment) you expect a candidate to deliver a functional reactive single page javascript app, with localstorage offline storage, searching (perhaps with filtering over a "category" model also), responsive, ideally with some form of test coverage & tested on multiple platforms.

I have a long way to go it seems! It would definitely take me more than 2 hours to do that to a standard I'd be happy with. And there's no way I'd submit "what I had" in 2 hours if I could sneak off and spend more hours of the weekend doing it & return something polished.

Do you penalize people who give something "too good" or query them on whether the _really_ only spent 2 hours doing it?

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#312

Post by SamUK96 »

zachd1_618 wrote: post #49

This. 100% this. As many others are saying, I find that this is the most comfortable way for me as an interviewee to demonstrate that I do in fact know what I'm talking about. Put me in front of a room full of people and a whiteboard and throw something at me, and I'll freeze. Freezing in that situation and being a bad engineer are wholly separate things. Anecdotally, when I get one of these problems, I spent 20 minu…

> actually-there-is-a-correct-answer situationals

Ugh. The worst step of interview process. Remember that guy who wrote a post about Google's hiring process, where they outsourced the asking of technical questions to untrained call-centre staff.

"Standard way to allocate memory in C?"

"malloc"

"Incorrect. Actually there's this cool library that does it for you with additional checks. Sorry, you have failed the interview"

"Wut?"

I've always found that those kind of interview processes put far too much stress on being correct to their "ideals" rather than be consistent with your own and your team's. I.e. I don't care if you name your column "domain_id", but for christ's sake name the other column "account_id".

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#314

Post by akamaozu »

nsxwolf wrote: post #121
snoman wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you done pair programming before? Especially as you become more senior, the pressure to not look like an idiot in front of junior devs adds up fast. You have to learn, quickly, how to get over that kind of inner monologue, and just get to work. That kind of scenario happens to me daily.

I've never felt that pressure. Keep an air of confidence. Let them assume you know way more than they do about almost anything else. They'll feel like they're really shining in this moment, and impressing you, and growing in their role. Win win.

I don't understand the desire to make it seem like you know everything.

If you learn something from someone, is it that much trouble to give them credit for expanding your horizon?

If this mindset is recursive down your organization's hierarchy, doesn't it create a scenario where a legitimate critique never gets heard because people don't question the decision of a higher ranked employee because there is the impression that they know more than you?

Seems like you and your employer are worse off, but your ego remains intact.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#316

Post by mobiuscog »

coldnebo wrote: post #295
mobiuscog wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you need Stack Overflow ? Seriously, is the ability to copy/query from Stack Overflow expected from 'programmers' these days ?!

That's a bit rough. I think you are missing the other value proposition for SO: in a world of poorly documented interfaces, it gives cogent, vetted examples of what works. And you still need to have expertise to know which solutions are crap vs gold. In the 'old days' you had maybe one or two languages and the language was the thing (not vast libraries like Java or .NET .. oh excuse me, the guys who used to get tease…

I just wouldn't expect to be applying for something / trying to do a test task, where I didn't already have the knowledge.

Then again, I don't really use SO anyway - I know somepeople use it daily.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#317

Post by moron4hire »

walshemj wrote: post #288
moron4hire wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> a majority of working engineers have contracts which explicitly forbid work for contract for other employers. Well that was very, very dumb of them. Maybe we engineers ain't so smart after all.

Custom and practice - you need to read your company handbook /contract some time.

Work agreements are really easy to modify before you sign them.

And I don't have an employee handbook. I own my own business.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#318

Post by msimpson »

We use a similar system which involves:

1. A phone interview to validate the applicants resume.

2. An in-person interview where the applicant is given an hour to complete level 10 of Blockly Maze (https://blockly-games.appspot.com/maze?level=10) after being briefed on the wall follower rule (if they are unaware).

3. Completion of an outside example project in the applicants strongest language, for which they are not paid to avoid non-compete clauses.

This usually is enough to evaluate whether the applicant is embellishing on their resume, capable of analytical thought in a completely alien language, and their ability to deliver a deployable project given specific requirements.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#319

Post by StavrosK »

edpichler wrote: post #294

Digest: pay for a task before deciding to contract. On the article, Amir wrote: "They refuse to do the project because “someone will hire me without it”. On book "Smart and Gets Things Done: Joel Spolsky's Concise Guide to Finding the Best Technical Talent" Joel said that the "the best developers usually have lots of proposals, so they don't spend time doing tests for interviews" . I think Joel and Amir are right.

I came here just to make the opposite point. They aren't making you do a test, they're hiring you for a project. It's fine if you're too busy even for paid work, but why would you turn it down otherwise?

I think Joel means "unpaid tests". I routinely turn interviews with unpaid projects down, because each interview process gets a number of hours of my time for free (depending on how much I want to work for that company) and unpaid tests/projects usually way way overrun that time.

Or maybe that's what you said and I misunderstood?

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#320

Post by marcosdumay »

vhab wrote: post #213
Udo wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This works, but make sure they spend the 2 hours in your office and not 12 hours at home solving a 2 hour problem.. This goes against the core message of the article. The candidate is supposed to think about a problem on their own, and propose a well-reflected solution on Monday. That's pretty much the opposite of "sit down in this noisy corner in an unknown environment and give us something in two hours". > The ot…

> If hiring a freelancer to do a little thing tends to generate all sorts of nightmarish legal liabilities, your company is either a government contractor or it has even bigger structural problems than hiring. It might not be an issue for your company, but your candidate might have a non-compete (or other clause) preventing them from accepting compensation or even performing work for another company at all. Things ge…

Then the candidate says something like "Well, you know, I can't take any payment before I'm out of this job. Can't I just do it for "free", and payment come as a bonus on hiring?"
Post reply on HN