P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016 • Hacker News Board

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#41

Post by arctangent » Sun, Oct 02, 2011, 4:33 AM UTC

citricsquid wrote: post #38

arctangent wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you've missed my point. How much "support" am I supposed to add?

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#42

Post by mattdeboard » Sun, Oct 02, 2011, 4:34 AM UTC

kemayo wrote: post #23

kabdib wrote: post #20

My thoughts: 1. Another programming problem. Okay, if it doesn't take too long, I'd do it. 2. 60 day fuse. No way. I've worked under a Sword-of-Damoclese clause before, and I won't do it again. This is a deal-breaker, and it's probably sending a very bad message to a large group of good engineers, and you're missing out. Fire for cause, or whatever, if you have to. But I won't work in an environment like that, and (I…

I can understand not wanting to work with the trial period; that's why we're really up front about it. There's a whole "no, we're not kidding; are you sure you want to take the job even given this?" segment to the offer.

> There's a whole "no, we're not kidding; are you sure you want to take the job even given this?" segment to the offer

So, your strategy is to deliberately make your job offer sound as unappealing as possible in order to find the people-who-call-themselves-programmers so unemployable and desperate for work they'll subject themselves to a trial period? Well, I would say that strategy, in terms of achieving its goal of attracting the desperate, is working out wonderfully for you all.

From my own experience watching as my manager tries to find good people and from everything I've read, it IS hard to hire good developers. But it seems like you guys are making it much harder on yourselves.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#43

Post by botj » Sun, Oct 02, 2011, 4:35 AM UTC

"I’d worked places with a trial period before, but it was always just a matter of not..."

Will you be on probation after that grammatical "bug"? By the way, you guys sound pretentious as hell. I'm surprised you don't lose more than 20% in the three month trial.

What's the point in the trial? If it's not working out, just fire them.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#44

Post by maxwin » Sun, Oct 02, 2011, 4:37 AM UTC

I think it might be because good developers filter you out before you filter them out. They might spend time working on the code because they happen to be interested in the problem, but a good developer would not waste their time on dull problems just to get a phone interview because they don't need to. Especially if they have never heard of your company. If you are selecting people who are desperate for jobs, your P is not surprising. Perhaps your should fix your own (hiring process) bugs first? Maybe P(great developers applying)=~ 0.00016? Just kidding :D

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#45

Post by kabdib » Sun, Oct 02, 2011, 4:41 AM UTC

kemayo wrote: post #23

kabdib wrote: post #20

My thoughts: 1. Another programming problem. Okay, if it doesn't take too long, I'd do it. 2. 60 day fuse. No way. I've worked under a Sword-of-Damoclese clause before, and I won't do it again. This is a deal-breaker, and it's probably sending a very bad message to a large group of good engineers, and you're missing out. Fire for cause, or whatever, if you have to. But I won't work in an environment like that, and (I…

I can understand not wanting to work with the trial period; that's why we're really up front about it. There's a whole "no, we're not kidding; are you sure you want to take the job even given this?" segment to the offer.

When I make a hiring decision, I am damned sure. The recommendation to hire is the point where I commit to doing my best to make things work out.

I have screwed up before. It sucks. It is painful and horrible to deal with someone who is not working out. But I haven't blown a "hire" vote in 18 years. Hundreds of interviewees, dozens of "hire" recommendations, zero bozos.

It sounds to me like you are insecure in your hiring practices, to the point where you tell people "Quit your job, move your family, turn your life inside out, whatever; but you're on probation here and you're gone if you blink funny."

Maybe it's just my past, where I was in this position (and it worked out really well, btw). But I wouldn't do that again, and I wouldn't do it /to/ anyone.

Good luck. I hope it works out. But I cannot imagine a worse way to enter a job.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#46

Post by LVB » Sun, Oct 02, 2011, 4:43 AM UTC

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,…

Lastly, the three month trial thing is, for me, a huge problem.

Yup. Your hiring practice better be up to the task of bringing in the right people at the outset, because the top candidates aren't going to tolerate a trial period. Not in this market for their talents.

I also think the trial approach is potentially harmful to the company. There's a reasonable chance that the most ambitious and positively disruptive people are going to clash with the existing team at the outset since they're not part of the groupthink.

Sure, if a guy turns out to be a mistake you can and should fire them, but starting everyone on probation is no good.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#47

Post by Homunculiheaded » Sun, Oct 02, 2011, 4:45 AM UTC

kemayo wrote: post #36

Homunculiheaded wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can see your point, and obviously DA isn't actually solving combinatorial optimization problems while ITA is. The problem is that this problem will likely only attract devs actively looking for work. DA is a well known site, and I have no doubt that there are many good and happily employed devs who have peaked at the job description, but as you can see in the comments here this test is off-putting. If you're not in serious need of work, this doesn't seem to be worth your time (and in my experience good devs are rarely in serious need of work).

I think the reason for the low P(we hire you) is that you may be accidentally skimming off the cream here. At the very least try getting people on the phone first so they can say "hey these DA guys are pretty cool and interested in me, it's worth jumping through a few hoops", or make the test seem interesting/fun/challenging

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#48

Post by EmployedRussian » Sun, Oct 02, 2011, 4:46 AM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #31

jrockway wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? ;-)

Google has experimentally determined that interviews 5 through 7 provide negligible additional signal, and so they've been eliminated from the process.

Contrary to latch's comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3062001, Google does tweak the process from time to time.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#49

Post by rorrr » Sun, Oct 02, 2011, 4:56 AM UTC

I've been doing interviews for a large corporation. I can tell you right away that your process is designed to weed out the best of the best.

You see, the best candidates stay on the market for maybe a week. You'd be lucky to interview them once. Nobody who is truly good will jump through your hoops.

You're just hiring the best of the ones willing to subject themselves to this ridiculous process, pretty much some desperate developers who are barely good enough to pass your tests.

And a 3 month probation - no way in the world, I would only do it if you paid $200K + bonus. The market is desperate for good developers, I'd have to be completely desperate to be treated like that.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#50

Post by throwaway100111 » Sun, Oct 02, 2011, 5:23 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #40

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 st…

I got an offer a few months ago from deviantART after doing the coding test and phone interview; I replied with some questions about salary/benefits and never heard back. Highly frustrating.

(Throwaway account, as I would rather not publicize that I'm looking for a different job. If you're looking for the same type of person dA is looking for though, feel free to reply to my comment with contact info.)