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

Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 48 posts

Re: Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

#11

Post by ngptprad »

sna1l wrote: post #5
ngptprad wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes sense. Will reach out to the interviewer to get a more detailed feedback. We also share the full code + questions as part of the full evaluation. Would you be interested in interviewing the candidate as a function of this evaluation? Is the interviewer identity important?

If a recording of the interview could be provided I think that would be best. I think gathering enough trust where people start accepting these dossiers as fact will take a long time unfortunately. But if you have a recording of the interview, I would be able to say a lot more definitively whether I liked the candidate or not. And as my opinions aligned with your dossiers, I'd trust your opinions more.

We have thought quite a bit about this and decided not to go down this route because we weren't sure if hiring managers would actually have the time to listen to a 1-hour conversation. Also, would it help if the identity of the candidate (resume data) and the interviewer's profile is available (so that it's more credible)?

Re: Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

#12

Post by ngptprad »

dkorolev wrote: post #4

In the past year I've been in multiple conversations about how could the future of tech recruiting be shaped to best help both candidates and employers, and have the confidence the future of this idea is extraordinarily bright.

Thanks, thats very encouraging feedback!

Re: Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

#13

Post by ngptprad »

ztratar wrote: post #6

Looks a lot like Triplebyte. What's the difference?

Yes, I'd say they are similar in that they also pre-vet candidates. One major difference is that we are more personalized to each candidate as we can match them to a senior engineer in their field (or field they are looking to enter). I think this should result in a more tailored and useful experience for the candidate (interview prep and feedback relevant for the role they want).

Also, our interviewers are independent, so there's no risk of conflict of interest or bias. My understanding of TB is that they do the interviews in house with their own engineers, or people they contract.

Re: Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

#15

Post by pan69 »

I'm interested to know if the context of the role that is interviewed for is taken into account. I mean, the skills required to implement a large scale distributed database engine are very different to implementing, say, an accounting solution (an app).

I have personally been in interviews in the past to be interviewed by a "software scientist" for a role that was primarily high level business logic based, but, because of the interviewers background, the interview was full of puzzles, algorithms and whiteboard tests, completely divorced from the actual role that was being hired for. I.e, he was interviewing for a software scientist (like himself) where the company clearly needed someone with experience in building products.

This is basically my biggest gripe with interviews in the past ten or so years, companies who think they are Google, hiring like they are Google but are not solving anything near the scope of what Google does.

Re: Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

#16

Post by alanbernstein »

geori wrote: post #14

Why are people with PHD and VPE level experience being slotted as junior engineers? It seems like a waste of time to recruit a senior person to a junior role.

I think those are both explained directly in the evaluations?

"​She does have 3 years of work experience prior to graduate school, but plays down the experience as her job search is focused on a specialization she has less direct experience in." Not to mention, the significance of "VPE" at a startup depends highly on the startup.

"However, he was less comfortable jumping into thinking about a problem outside of an area of expertise." Where the area of expertise is not software engineering.

Re: Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

#17

Post by pradeep_m »

drfuchs wrote: post #10

The interviewer for candidate 1 isn't very technically proficient. In the "if the array was too big to fit in memory" case (where "disk" is explicitly mentioned), the proposed solution starts by moving the disk head from track 1 to track N, then back to track 2, then track N-1, 3, N-2, etc., oscillating until it stops at track N/2. That takes a grand total of O(N^2) seek time. The correct solution is to do one sequen…

I think the code is written for the case where it fits in memory. For that case, the solution is O(n) in terms of time complexity. From the feedback it seems that they only spoke about the solution where the data doesn't fit in memory.

Re: Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

#18

Post by Chyzwar »

Both interviews highly biased towards interviewing skills: bs and basic algo. Judging if someone has the skill to build large system based on a conversation is silly. You cannot make an informed decision.

You should look for people with the portfolio. If someone has made a project in TensorFlow to paint in Picasso style then you should hire them regardless of education.

This is an unpopular opinion. You cannot become good in software engineering if you only read HN and work 9-5.

My ideas for interview:

  1. Ask the candidate to bring a laptop, people running Linux +1
  2. Pick random testing framework and ask if the candidate can setup and run some tests for fizzbuzz.
  3. Ask a difficult question on system design, CAP theorem, compilers and OS internals. They should not be able to answer these. 
  4. If they lasted so far, make them comfortable before the finale. Pat theirs ego a bit.  
  5. Confront the candidate, essentially troll them a bit. For example: Describe fictional homemade crypto system build in PHP. Judge their response.
Instead of comfy 30 min BS talk about their previous experience you will have a better picture of the person if you put them in the hot seat. Above is just an opinion as I do not have interviewing experience.

Re: Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

#19

Post by TrainedMonkey »

drfuchs wrote: post #10

The interviewer for candidate 1 isn't very technically proficient. In the "if the array was too big to fit in memory" case (where "disk" is explicitly mentioned), the proposed solution starts by moving the disk head from track 1 to track N, then back to track 2, then track N-1, 3, N-2, etc., oscillating until it stops at track N/2. That takes a grand total of O(N^2) seek time. The correct solution is to do one sequen…

The problem statement did not mention anything about optimizing the real world throughput of the algorithm. For the things you are talking about to matter there would need to be a far more complete problem specification.

Re: Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

#20

Post by zebraflask »

I think the idea is novel enough, but the examples provided came across as "fluff" with very little useful material.

The meat of the form is the "Engineer Attributes" radio button scale for 14 different topics, not one of which was backed by a concrete example from the interview, a resume, a portfolio, etc. Those need to read "Agree, because ___," or "Disagree, because ___." Without that, these metrics undermine the credibility of the whole thing.

I wouldn't use this service in its current form.

Post reply on HN