Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, not that I was talking to you (I was talking to cookiecaper) But I appreciate the interest even if your reply is a little bit of a response to something I didn't say. Near as I can tell your process appears to be first come first serve. By your own statements, you don't look at resumes, and you apparently don't ask any particular questions about work history or education during your interview process. I'm guess…
> By your own statements, you don't look at resumes, and you apparently don't ask any particular questions about work history or education during your interview process. This thread is already a bit too long, and I haven't read through tptacek's link about his hiring process, but: 1. you don't look at resumes, If I am hiring for a ruby on rails position specifically, the only thing I need to check is if you know ruby…
It's a first come first serve, but only if you are this tall, process.
It's intriguing, and the technical interview process isn't entirely unlike others I've seen, and does a good job weeding out persons that have no business working for Matasano.
Like anything there is an upside and a downside:
Downside first (because I'd like to end on a positive note)
As an applicant, you really want to have that job, because you just dropped applying for anything else for a few weeks while you run this gauntlet.
Good side:
Matasano ends up with qualified, eager employees who really want to be there.
The biggest problem for me in both of your examples is that, taken literally, you know only the functional capabilities of the candidate, but virtually nothing else.
People who can answer moderately deep technical questions are a dime-a-dozen in certain parts of the country. So while passing an intensive technical screen will generally yield solid employees, it can sometimes fail in interesting ways.
I remember a guy my friend hired just this year who passed all of the technical screens (all done remotely via phone interviews, webex and email) with flying colors, but had two problems: once employed, he just froze unless given explicit direction every 5 minutes, he had atrocious personal hygiene that was so bad it sent half a dozen people home ill. On his resume? Didn't finish his schooling, Unanswered questions for the Matasano process:
1) Can they actually finish an extended task or are they just good test takers?
2) Are they self motivated?
3) Do they tend to move about employers very quickly? (ladder jumpers, flaky personalities)
4) Have they performed well on teams?
5) Do they have a violent criminal history or dangerous psychological issues you should be aware of?
6) Do they have other skills you might be able to take advantage of in the future?
etc.
Hiring people is hard. Hiring good people doubly so. But a good hiring process should be well rounded so that you understand where you can use a person in your organization if you choose to hire them, and set expectations of performance up front. An anti-social super tech type might only be usable in development, while somebody with good presentation skills and strong technical skills might be more valuable in a variety of roles.
I'm not saying mine is the best and greatest in the world, but it's pretty good, and more or less what you'll find just about any place. Some places have oddball or one-off hiring systems that work well for them and provide them with their own desired metrics on an employee. I think that's great also.
Going back to the original point that drug us down into this conversational morass, resumes are fairly standard, and have certain things most companies expect to see. Building a resume based on the hiring practices of just one company is not something I'd particularly recommend unless you only care about getting hired at that one place and nowhere else.
Important! The resume won't get you hired, but it will get you an interview. Otherwise you need some selection mechanism to determine whom to interview or you'll spend every waking moment in interview hell.