3 ms·

Mmmhhh I would have drawn the opposite conclusion, most people estimate ±1 star away from the real result, it's not bad considering the actual performance is no

• tom_mellior 10y ago
  > not bad considering the actual performance is not entirely objective It's not even clear (to me) what's being compared here. What's the "actual performance" that the blog post very carefully does not define? The screenshot highlighting the technical performance question seems to suggest that it might be only that one point out of the three that interviewers fill in. But it's completely possible to be technically competent and still feel that one didn't do well overall because one came across as nervous or boring or whatever. In other words, the comparison here seems to be between apples and undefined oranges.