When I hired a plumber for my heating firm, I put her through a hazing interview, tested her knowledge of Maxwell relations and thermodynamic equations. Oh wait, no I didn't. As she has been a plumber for years, so we recognised her skill and experience and cut to the chase. When I hired a programmer for our doomed to die VC life support funded fart of a project, we put her through numerous rounds of comp sci bingo a…
So, to clarify, you're advocating that programmers be hired based on resume, references, and a conversation about prior projects? I'm not sure I agree with this. It seems you'd be selecting for ability to present yourself as a good programmer over actually being a good programmer.
What is your objection to attempting to verify someone's programming skill directly? It's certainly not an easy thing to do, but it doesn't seem apparent to me that it's impossible or not worthwhile.
If the standard "whiteboard algorithmic brainteaser" is not a high quality signal (which I'm not sure I grant, Google seems to think it is, and they claim to have the data to back it up, though they're probably much, much more false-negative tolerant than most), it seems like there's plenty of dials to twist to try and increase the signal-to-noise and cost/benefit.
a) Length of interview (one hour? full day? trial run of several weeks?)
b) Topic (algorithmic vs. brainteaser vs. some attempt to simulate the "real world" to some level of fidelity?)
c) Interface (Whiteboard vs. on computer vs. something else?)
(I'm being a little disingenuous with the whiteboard vs. computer thing. I don't get the value of writing on a whiteboard. I'm kinda hoping someone might be able to elucidate that.)
There's probably not a one-size-fits-all. Depends on your tolerance for risk, how senior you're trying to hire, how tight the job market is, etc. But I really would hesitate to work at a place that just took people's word on their programming ability.