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

Red Flags I Saw While Doing 60 Technical Interviews in 30 Days

meekg33k.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 247 posts

Re: Red Flags I Saw While Doing 60 Technical Interviews in 30 Days

#191

Post by ghaff »

setgree wrote: post #19

I once got stood up for a round of interviews — I showed up, waited, emailed them multiple times to let them know I was there, and then 30 minutes later they wrote to me to ask if I could come in another day (rather than meeting me at the front desk where I was sitting). At the time I was just annoyed that they had wasted my time, but in retrospect, the real red flag there was that no one took responsibility — “there…

Stuff does happen. I actually got stood up for my first in-person discussion with someone from my current company. But, in all fairness, it was informal, a call came up, and their admin didn't have my cell. (The scheduled meeting wasn't even in the office.)

Re: Red Flags I Saw While Doing 60 Technical Interviews in 30 Days

#192

Post by mgkimsal »

t0mbstone wrote: post #183
onei wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quantifying it is hard for sure, but some sample questions I've used in the past: 1. (Curiosity) How do you keep up to date with tech? Then explore something recent they started playing with and how they found it. 2. (Ability to learn) Ask about past failures, what they thought went wrong and what they'd do next time. If that's a bit harsh, ask what they'd change about their last major project. 3. (Ability to listen)…

"Curiosity" is a weird trait to gauge, because the person might be completely exhausted and fatigued by the ever-shifting quicksand of the tech world, but still be extremely curious about things outside of their job, such as their hobbies. For example, I have recently started doing a lot of cooking and bread baking, and I've watched hundreds of youtube videos about those topics (which I could argue demonstrates curio…

"Curiosity" has caused me to try to get more involved in business meetings/decisions, but that's often not the 'curiosity' tech managers want. As you say, they want people who are 'curious' about new tech and will learn in their personal time.

I've done this for decades, and there's a degree of regret about how much time I've spent 'learning' and 'being curious'. Not a huge regret, but... it's help reduce the need to dive in to some things altogether. But.. that comes across as "not interested in learning" to some people. No... I can usually just tell after a quick skim if there's going to be business value in tech X. We don't need to spend weeks prototyping something that is obviously not a fit... unless... we're doing this for show, or politics, or something else. If that's the case, just say "we're using X" not "let's investigate X to see if it can meet our needs".

Good on you for having non-tech hobbies. I doodle on guitar, and am 'curious' about that, but it's not going to land me any tech jobs. :)

Re: Red Flags I Saw While Doing 60 Technical Interviews in 30 Days

#193

Post by neilv »

neilv wrote: post #68

If someone is doing 60 technical interviews in 30 days: 1. When I'm hiring, I wish the resume sites have an indicator when a person is interviewing excessively or indiscriminately, so that my company doesn't waste our time. 2. In the rare situation that I've been interested in working at a particular company, I wish I knew better ways for my interest to stand out from the "shotgun approach" applicants. I did see one…

I'm not complaining about being downvoted to negative after an initial jump up, but I'm curious why, and the comments don't say.

Was it the criticism of doing 60 interviews in 30 days, because some people think that's a good idea, or want to do that?

Was it because the wish for an indicator when a person is "interviewing excessively or indiscriminately" would be a privacy invasion, or more shift of the balance of power towards employers?

Re: Red Flags I Saw While Doing 60 Technical Interviews in 30 Days

#194

Post by dan-robertson »

chrismcb wrote: post #178
devoutsalsa wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I liked to ask the question, "If I extended an offer you like, would you accept it?" It helps facilitate a regular conversation about if & when someone would accept an offer, and if any steps can be taken to make an offer happen.

How is this a good question? The only acceptable answer is "yes" otherwise the interview is over.

Because the only acceptable answer is actually “it depends” and the point of the question is to find what it depends on.

Re: Red Flags I Saw While Doing 60 Technical Interviews in 30 Days

#195

Post by jcims »

ghaff wrote: post #187
vishnugupta wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to that, role clarity is inversely proportional to the seniority.

I got hired on for a position once where the job description was retroactively written for me after I came in for an interview. I suppose in retrospect that means it was written in a way that it probably wasn't a good fit for most people.

That seems a little odd, maybe they had some KPIs around hiring/fit or something and wanted to fluff their numbers.

Re: Red Flags I Saw While Doing 60 Technical Interviews in 30 Days

#196

Post by devoutsalsa »

chrismcb wrote: post #178
devoutsalsa wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I liked to ask the question, "If I extended an offer you like, would you accept it?" It helps facilitate a regular conversation about if & when someone would accept an offer, and if any steps can be taken to make an offer happen.

How is this a good question? The only acceptable answer is "yes" otherwise the interview is over.

If someone has 1+ interviews scheduled, they may not be prepared to give you an answer until they've explored their options. If you push the candidate to accept, they may just turn you down because they don't like being pressured.

Re: Red Flags I Saw While Doing 60 Technical Interviews in 30 Days

#197

Post by ghaff »

Espressosaurus wrote: post #185
ghaff wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it's so much time to consider as time to tell any others companies you're also through some part of the process with (especially if you're already through interviews) that they need to make a formal offer to you now or you're going elsewhere. Maybe it's just me but if you just have one offer letter in hand and have probably already thought about what it would take to take an offer, I can almost certainly…

You'll also want enough time to give the other companies a chance to counteroffer. You have more leverage with an offer in hand.

Yes, it's a function of there being other companies in the mix. I've only been in that position once right out of engineering grad school. As it turns out, the position I (probably incorrectly) wanted was from the government and they didn't have any flexibility. (This was also in the early 1980s and the salary figures would seem hilarious to people here although I assume software wasn't much different at the time.)

Re: Red Flags I Saw While Doing 60 Technical Interviews in 30 Days

#198

Post by heavenlyblue »

nickff wrote: post #102
david38 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hypocrisy is that to even get to the point where you have a 24 / 48 hour exploding offer, you (the candidate) had to often wait weeks to get a response to the application, phone screen, on-site, decision. So I don’t buy this fairness argument. If we’re talking about fairness, the process would be super quick, and then I would get a week to think about a decision that will affect YEARS of my life. To say nothing o…

Well, it's an asymmetrical situation; you had to wait to get an initial response, but on the other hand, you can keep interviewing while the offer is on the table. I think the explosion timer is simply a response to the fact that it's not an exclusive relationship (yet), but the company cannot explore other options while the offer is out. I am not even sure how to judge fairness; do you have a specific moral/ethical…

> but the company cannot explore other options while the offer is out.

That’s not how it works in most companies

Re: Red Flags I Saw While Doing 60 Technical Interviews in 30 Days

#199

Post by ghaff »

jcims wrote: post #195
ghaff wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got hired on for a position once where the job description was retroactively written for me after I came in for an interview. I suppose in retrospect that means it was written in a way that it probably wasn't a good fit for most people.

That seems a little odd, maybe they had some KPIs around hiring/fit or something and wanted to fluff their numbers.

I'm not going to be specific, but at a certain level, companies will hire people that execs know/have worked with and figure out the best role for them.

Re: Red Flags I Saw While Doing 60 Technical Interviews in 30 Days

#200

Post by pdimitar »

atleta wrote: post #130
WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have personally given up on "whiteboarding people"... reminds me of waterboarding. I skim the resume, underline anything we use internally and talk to them about experiences. We've done over 300 interviews in the last expansion year (2017) because we had to build a brand new development office (+50 devs). After hiring all of these people, we've quantified this as three things: Curiosity, Ability to Learn and Abilit…

I don't exactly whiteboard, because in the past several years I've only interviewed online and while I'm looking for the same qualities, I found that (a simple) coding challenge does help with determining these. (I'm also looking for the smarts, but not "google smart" scale.) Just by struggling with a (really not that hard) challenge tells a lot about how well someone is able to listen. E.g. when you try to give hint…

I'd completely fail your interviews and that's not a criticism to you.

I am fairly experienced and I can simulate stuff in my head quite quickly but this often has a detrimental effect -- I get a few ideas, see all their flaws and get an analysis paralysis. I flunked one otherwise promising interview by doing this.

Sometimes you just freeze, you know. I have confidence of having excellent problem-solving skills but they are not always summonable on demand right at this minute.

I have a fairly successful -- if very rich on employers -- career so I should probably view the above as a personal weakness and not as something inherently bad, but I am not sure.

How do you feel about such people?

(I usually prefer a take-home assignment even if it's more work. It gives me a chance to show excellent craftsmanship and attention to detail, which I really want to demonstrate during the interview process.)

Post reply on HN