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

Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

yegor256.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 674 posts

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#361

Post by stcredzero »

roguecoder wrote: post #215
stcredzero wrote: post #148

There is no point in giving me binary-tree-traversing questions; I don't know those answers and will never be interested in learning them. Let's presume this is out of preference and not ability. It's a pretty basic concept. If your preference stops you from learning something as basic as this as a programmer, then it doesn't seem likely that you will be motivated to keep up with even more abstruse concepts. Nearly e…

It is a basic question about one very narrow skill set that is relevant for some, but not all, programming jobs. It is trivial only for people who had to slog through only-sort-of-relevant CS degrees, who may or may not be the most productive programmers. I could just as easily say "we should be asking every programmer to handle a six-box grid layout" on a white board. It is just as trivial, it is relevant to the sam…

It is a basic question about one very narrow skill set that is relevant for some, but not all, programming jobs.

I could just as easily say "we should be asking every programmer to handle a six-box grid layout" on a white board.

It's a skill set that's relevant to almost all of programming jobs. Quick: give me an example of how time/space complexity can be relevant to layout manager code. (Can't do it? Dunning-Kruger just reared its ugly head again.)

You don't necessarily need to write your own layout manager. But to properly shop for one for some demanding use cases, you may well benefit from just cocktail-party level first principles knowledge, so you can pick the right library. Or, do you just have faith that Apple or [Big Company] knows what it's doing, and assume that everything can handle everything you throw at it. That works over 90% of the time. It's the exceptional case where you need the 1st principles, and such cases usually come with outsized penalties if you don't know.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#362

Post by ninjakeyboard »

I think you're missing the point - those things that you don't like about the Google interview process are meant to eliminate bias. Your hiring manager doesn't interview you because they might make compromises. People interviewing you don't review your profile because they might have a bias if they know about you.

All of the things that make those interviews effective are the things that you are complaining about.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#363

Post by GFischer »

krzyk wrote: post #259
rpdillon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion that traversing a binary tree requires expertise in algorithms seems questionable to me. I view basic tree traversal as table stakes for a developer with more than a year or two of experience (IIRC, it's discussed in Intro to Algorithms in most CS curricula). OP says that his field is object-oriented design, which links to a page where he announces that "We've started work on a new programming language". T…

> I view basic tree traversal as table stakes for a developer with more than a year or two of experience (IIRC, it's discussed in Intro to Algorithms in most CS curricula). You mix two completely irrelevant things: education and experience. You will be taught binary trees in CS, but not every programmer is studying that. If you learn binary trees in CS, you will forget it after few years of experience, because skills…

And a third category: people that train specifically to pass the Amazon and Google exam.

I know several people that did, taking several months off to prepare (and got in), and yes, you have to re-learn all the CS algorithms which will probably be irrelevant again after you pass the interview.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#364

Post by ethbro »

protomyth wrote: post #351
ethbro wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a functional difference between "my production code suddenly stopped processing work because it rejected a newly nullable input value" vs "my production code suddenly stopped processing work because it crashed on a newly nullable input value"?

If the crash gives an attack vector for a security threat then there is. Personally, "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others" is a bad policy in the modern world. It should be "Be conservative in what you do, be strict as if you don't trust them in what you accept from others".

That's a valid point if it's security-critical. My initial response was with regards to grandparent comments arguing over semantics, when the end results in both cases was "successful processing ceased because of an API change."

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#365

Post by Apocryphon »

beachstartup wrote: post #299
gcp wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was pretty well understood that you should never name a number, and if you're forced to, you should say 5 times the number you had in mind.

that's absurd. you should name the price you expect, and not go below your minimum. would you hire a plumber that refuses to name his rate, and then when pushed, tells you a number 5 times higher than normal? why do you think any other employment negotiation is any different? if you "never name a number", the person on the other end is going to know you're inexperienced and operating on cargo cult mythology, and will…

The 5 times part is surely a joke, but not naming a number is like HN-promulgated salary negotiation 101

http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/ https://www.twilio.com/blog/2016/02/patrick-mckenzie-on-sala...

Definitely would be good if someone wrote a counter-response to this prevailing meme

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#366

Post by Apocryphon »

maverick_iceman wrote: post #224
pmontra wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's not what they are looking for. Maybe it's only the easiest test, like looking for the keys under the lamp post. It could also be that this way of hiring people turned the company into a specific direction, more attention to the sw and less to the customers.

It seems to be working fine for them.

Is it?

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#367

Post by ghbakir »

It's an unreasonable ask. Not a single engineer stays his whole career with the same manager. Furthermore, needs change since demands and projects change.

Therefore at a big company the best strategy is to check fundamentals.

I agree that it's a BS strategy. I would love that the hiring process is a internship or some other real work simulation. Unfortunately they do not scale.

Maybe the author should consider a smaller company where one can predict the future role.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#368

Post by logfromblammo »

orange_county wrote: post #237

"I'm sorry, recruiters, no more standard interviews for me." This whole blog post reeks of arrogance. You write a few books, done some presentations at a conference and suddenly you are above the standardize hiring process? Next time, just tell the recruiters you don't do interviews and only do consultations at X rate.

Yes, someone like that is above a standardized interview process.

But that is only because we are all above such a process.

There is no single standard for software professionals' jobs, and that is why it is stupid and foolish to have a single standard for hiring into those thousands of unique jobs.

For most companies, the only skill you need to have and develop is how to shovel that company's unique and specific type of manure, or if you prefer, how to prepare their unique and specific flavor of sweetened "ade" beverage.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#369

Post by sgustard »

georgyo wrote: post #278
ryandrake wrote: post #31

Unlike most of HN (it seems), I like hearing from recruiters, because despite the very low signal-to-noise ratio, there's always that remote chance that one of them could be able to set me up with a "dream job". It's zero cost to me to politely reply to a recruiter and ask for more info, and I try to at least respond to everyone. What I've found is that they must have a lot of candidates they're juggling because fall…

Head hunting is very profitable. If you get a recruiter email for a company that is not that company, it's _always_ junk. 100% of the time, it is a waste of time. Ignore those, and look for the ones that are from the actual company. They have their own recruiting team that you are going to be dealing with anyway, and aren't playing the numbers game or shuffling their candidates between many different companies trying…

>If you get a recruiter email for a company that is not that company, it's _always_ junk

Not true. Companies hire recruiters to find employees. Not all companies (especially startups) have their own internal recruiting department.

The flip side is true, though: as a company trying to hire people, every recruiter email that says "I have a perfect candidate for you" is junk. They just invent those people or send resumes of people who aren't even on the job market.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#370

Post by georgyo »

sib wrote: post #307
georgyo wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Head hunting is very profitable. If you get a recruiter email for a company that is not that company, it's _always_ junk. 100% of the time, it is a waste of time. Ignore those, and look for the ones that are from the actual company. They have their own recruiting team that you are going to be dealing with anyway, and aren't playing the numbers game or shuffling their candidates between many different companies trying…

" If you get a recruiter email for a company that is not that company, it's _always_ junk. 100% of the time, it is a waste of time." This is false. My last two roles were both initiated by 3rd-party recruiters.

Yes, it is possible to get hired with the use of 3rd-party recruiters, but it is still not in your benefit. If they never got people hired, then they wouldn't make money and even try.

If you don't have any way for companies to target you themselves, then 3rd party recruiters might be more effective the you targeting companies directly yourself.

However, if you are in the boat where you are getting many recruiter emails a week, my advice is sound. They are all junk, and the only way to get any signal to noise is to look for ones directly from the company doing the hiring.

Post reply on HN