131–140 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, I work at Google. I am sorry for this. This should never happen. How long ago was this? I can try to follow up on your behalf.
Nov 13th, 2015. It's a bit of a moot point now, though. I've since switched to remote only, left the bay area, and bought a nice log cabin in the countryside. Horses in the morning and no commute = a very happy me :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a similar end result from Facebook, I assume I did not pass but never heard back from my recruiter.
Yep, had a video-interview with FB too. Didn't hear from them after that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google NDA covers (non)disclosure of Google confidential info. It has nothing to do with "bad-mouth"ing before or after termination of employment.
Perhaps not, but if you say something negative about Google, and it gets a lot of attention from the public, I think you can agree that you're probably going to get fired. Let's be real here, NDA or no NDA, this is true of working for any company. Which is why the "personal views" of a current company employee of any organization posted publicly is close to useless.
thesmallestcat claimed "that ex-Googlers cannot bad-mouth the company", and I claimed that no such clause exists in the standard contract of employment.
By the time you are an ex Googler, getting fired is unlikely to be an effective deterrent.
> Which is why the "personal views" of a current company employee of any organization posted publicly is close to useless.
Either you believe that the company is forcing me to write this (instead of just remaining silent), or your argument is not very logical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's a decent amount that you can do to prepare for one of these things, but there's also an incredible amount you don't have control over. This is super important. Don't take it personally at all. They're using the randomness as a flow control. They are always attracting more talent than they actually need purposely to keep the reservoir full and just running the extra through the spill gates. Just taking a rid…
> If you don't get the job, it's not a signal regarding your quality as an engineer and you shouldn't interpret it as such (however tempting it may be to do so). Of course "not getting a job" is a "signal regarding your quality as an engineer". We need to keep this toxic mindset out of tech and silicon valley. The idea that everyone is smart, special, and deserves a job at Google, is completely false. There are peopl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once upon a time, a hiring committee was presented some feedbacks and had to come to a yes/no decision for some candidates. All them were rejected. It turned out that the feedbacks were of the hiring committee's members, from when they got hired.
I've heard this before, is there a source for this? It has all the hallmarks of an urban legend...
As always, remember that even technical interviews like this one have an incredible amount of random chance built into the hiring process. This is especially true at a big company like Google (where I work and do interviews). Do they happen to have positions open right now? Did you happen to get asked questions that clicked with you? Was the hiring committee feeling grouchy that day? Did you get an especially harsh i…
You think a company like Google would be able to implement a non-subjective and fair interview. Their current process must cost them a lot of talent
Better than my interview experience. Sailed through the phone interview, went in person for the day long interview. Most were no problem except for one that took longer than it should have. And then... Nothing. Radio silence. No emails. No answered emails. I had ceased to exist. After that colossal waste of time, I decided to only work remote.
I once worked for a company that is greatly respected in IT industry. While their engineers were top notch, the non-technical ones were... let's just say not so good. It was common for a recruiter to forget about a candidate (even a good one who passed the interviews!). One guy got positive reply 3 months after his interview. I imagine there may be similar mess at Google too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don't get the job, it's not a signal regarding your quality as an engineer and you shouldn't interpret it as such (however tempting it may be to do so). Of course "not getting a job" is a "signal regarding your quality as an engineer". We need to keep this toxic mindset out of tech and silicon valley. The idea that everyone is smart, special, and deserves a job at Google, is completely false. There are peopl…
I was rejected from Google when I first graduated from college. Now I work at NASA and I'm very thankful I didn't get that job. Saying that the hiring process is flawed isn't the same thing as saying everyone is special and deserves a job there. From my anecdotal experience, I felt that they focus too much on algorithms and give the same interview to every candidate regardless of their experience or desired job. I ma…
I'm not a Googler, but from what I hear, moving between teams within Google takes less effort than most places, so that might explain why Google tends to interview for a generic "Google developer" rather than a "Embedded developer" position. Who knows, you might progress from initially working on the Google home firmware, then move on to optimizing the search client code and then possibly the search backend for Home itself.
I'm sure there are a lot of specialists at Google, but I suspect those are fewer than generalists with a solid handle on data structures and algorithms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps not, but if you say something negative about Google, and it gets a lot of attention from the public, I think you can agree that you're probably going to get fired. Let's be real here, NDA or no NDA, this is true of working for any company. Which is why the "personal views" of a current company employee of any organization posted publicly is close to useless.
> I think you can agree that you're probably going to get fired. thesmallestcat claimed "that ex-Googlers cannot bad-mouth the company", and I claimed that no such clause exists in the standard contract of employment. By the time you are an ex Googler, getting fired is unlikely to be an effective deterrent. > Which is why the "personal views" of a current company employee of any organization posted publicly is close…
The problem is that there are likely current employees with both positive and negative feedback about the company. However, you will only hear the former, because the latter would get fired for speaking. Therefore, at the very best, we have to assume your view isn't necessarily representative of the whole.
But more than that, I don't feel Google employees have a particularly balanced view about their employer. You can see my thought on the issue here, and Frqy3's response is succinct in the issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14159213
But moving all the way back to the top of this chain, I do see a lot of bad interview stories with Google. Whether through malice or not, there is a lot of hoops to jump through, and as thesmallestcat indicated, people who don't have an incredible amount of enthusiasm for Google are unlikely to bother to continue the process. As it stands, each time one of those "horror stories" comes out, a variety of HN members often state that they would not want to work for Google, in part because of that process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think a company like Google would be able to implement a non-subjective and fair interview. Their current process must cost them a lot of talent
> Their current process must cost them a lot of talent reply They optimize to reduce false positives. They're completely fine with false negatives. They don't have any shortage of talented engineers willing to interview there. That last bit is why I think it's quite silly for smaller/unknown startups to be copying Google's interview process, as seems to be the trend.
It's the same with manufacturing. It's better to provide 96% reliability with warranty than to struggle with providing 99.9% reliability.