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

P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

davidlynch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 73 posts

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#31

Post by cperciva »

jrockway wrote: post #24
thomaspaine wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never actually applied for a job at Google, but going to 7 interviews (or however many it is now) seems like a lot more work than what they're asking for. I'd rather spend 30 minutes writing code than 7 hours on interviews, and either way you're going to have to answer technical questions at some point in the process. Also, if you can't be bothered to spend 30 minutes proving that you can code, how much do you r…

It's four interviews and lunch. (Which is longer than the average interview, but if you are going to fly to another city and stay in a hotel, what's the difference between 2 hours and 5 hours? The actual interview is not the inconvenience, the travel is.)

I'm pretty sure I had 7 interviews when I visited Mt.View five years ago. Maybe Google's standards are slipping? ;-)

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#32

Post by AndrewMoffat »

justin_vanw wrote: post #3

P(I'm impressed) ~= Nope Turning down a lot of candidates is not the same as finding good candidates. If you are turning down that many applicants, all it means is that your applicant pool is almost entirely bad candidates. That merely implies you are failing where it matters most, getting awesome candidates interested and excited about working for you. I bet you could drive the P down even more. You could write wors…

What's interesting to me is the opening paragraph of the blog post:

"It turns out to be quite difficult to hire good developers. I’m involved in the hiring process at deviantART, and it has opened my eyes to just how unqualified the majority of applicants to these jobs are."

There seems to be a complete lack of connecting the dots from "this is unusually difficult" to "what can be done to make this better/easier/more efficient." And given that this failure is centered around software developer positions... it doesn't say good things about the kinds of problem-solving that goes on in their culture.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#33

Post by linuxhansl »

We do a simple programming test too, but we do after a phone screen and after we decided to invite you to come in. It's simply part of the 1/2-1 day interview that we do.

You get 2 hours, a problem that doesn't take more than 30-60 mins to solve, and an internet connection in case you want to look something up.

I agree with other posters here that a very simple problems weeds out a large chunk of the inept folks.

We had people just sit in that room for two hours and all they did was remove some lines from the skeleton that we have them. Or people who just left this simple exercise and went home.

I disagree with others about doing it life via a shared session. Programming and thinking is a private affair (IMHO), there is some exploration component in it. Nobody will want to explore in front of a panel.

In the end we don't even look at the test unless there is disagreement between the interviewers, or we identified a specific concern about problem solving.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#34

Post by JoeCortopassi »

latch wrote: post #19
JoeCortopassi wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just tossing this out there, cause I was one of the people making those comments. I don't think anyone is frustrated with not getting hired, I think it's just weird seeing the same monthly "We really want to hire people" post, but zero response to (what seems like)a lot of people that apply. I feel like this is indicative of one of three scenarios: 1) For whatever reason, there is a high turn over rate at your compan…

It's mind boggling that your parent, your OP, missed that people were mainly disappointed with the lack of feedback. It's also disappointing that, despite a number of signs, they don't even consider that they/their process might be the problem. There's a disconnect.

It's funny that they don't get it though. If you want a community (HN) to help you with something (finding help), you need to be nice/polite to them. Otherwise people start getting vocal.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#36

Post by kemayo »

Homunculiheaded wrote: post #26
cletus wrote: post #8

You have two steps round the wrong way: 1. Do the phone screen first. Frankly, in my experience, you can filter out a lot of people in the first minute; and 2. Then do the test. Speaking of the test, I had a quick look and it takes time. How much time? I'm not sure as I didn't look at the starting code, just the list of tasks. Maybe it only takes 30 minutes. Maybe it might take hours. I really don't know. Either way,…

It is possible, I believe, to test first and then interview. I think the greatest example of this is ITA Software's puzzles [1] I find it almost impossible not to stop what I'm doing and try to solve a few, because they are both interesting and difficult (even the more mundane ones). In this case these tests before interview would actually attract me to ITA, if everyone there has solved those problems you'd know you'…

We do worry a bit about the "dull day of work" aspect to it. But what it's testing for is important, and attention to detail in a messy little webapp is likely a better predictor for success than the ability to throw out a flawless algorithm exercise.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#37

Post by [deleted] »

cletus wrote: post #8

You have two steps round the wrong way: 1. Do the phone screen first. Frankly, in my experience, you can filter out a lot of people in the first minute; and 2. Then do the test. Speaking of the test, I had a quick look and it takes time. How much time? I'm not sure as I didn't look at the starting code, just the list of tasks. Maybe it only takes 30 minutes. Maybe it might take hours. I really don't know. Either way,…

[deleted]

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#38

Post by citricsquid »

arctangent wrote: post #27
latch wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree re the test. I'm sure it would have been different if I was interested in the job, but I didn't even finish reading what they wanted me to do before I said "screw this".

Hate to be another "me too". But I also looked at the test and it was pretty obvious that (a) it's going to take more than 5 minutes and (b) it's not really clear how I demonstrate my knowledge to the potential employer. Vague requirements like "add support for our new data format" mean nothing to me in this context. Am I supposed to add error checking? Should I automatically detect which format is used? I have no id…

the "new data format" is just them checking if you a) recognise data formats when not labeled or b) are capable of identifying data you don't know. The data format they link to is json; the "puzzle" is identifying it, adding support is trivial.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#39

Post by jefflinwood »

Looking at your job description, I'm guessing that you are trying to hire junior PHP/MySQL programmers at maybe a $50,000/yr US range. Nothing wrong with that.

Looking at your coding exercise, it's a small set of code, but it would be more than an hour or two for me (or presumably anyone) to do all of the improvements, find all the bugs, fix them, do the extra credit, make sure it's not sloppy before I turn it in, etc. So way more commitment than just sending in a resume or writing you an email.

Reading your blog post, you guys seem to want rock star technical candidates, but with that job description, you're going to attract people who have done a few PHP web sites, maybe customized a Drupal or or Joomla or Wordpress site.

When I've interviewed and hired developers, our best ones always came from friends or recommendations, never from job postings or job boards.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#40

Post by pyre »

As I stated in the thread kemayo referred to:

1. I got as far as a promise of a second interview that never materialized. I found it annoying to be told that they wanted to give me another interview, then that they 'moved forward with another candidate,' then to see that the position is seemingly unfilled months later. (I'll note that they were posting in the "We're Hiring" threads within a week or two)

2. Between stages in the interview process I would be told that I would be hearing back from them 'shortly' or 'soon.' This ended up being an average of 3 weeks between stages in the process. Which was rather frustrating.

[edit] I'll at some other notes:

1. The programming problem doesn't have to be perfect. Mine wasn't. They pointed out that my code was susceptible to SQL injection during the first interview. And I also missed a JavaScript gotcha (that was obviously placed there intentionally). [Obviously you want to do as well as you can on this, just sayin' that they aren't requiring 100% on the problem to get your foot in the door.]

2. I was able to get an interview with little PHP experience.

Post reply on HN