3 ms·

>Very few candidates are Diego Forlan How would one know? Usually we know a friend who works somewhere and they say the company is shit. Or you work somewhere

>Very few candidates are Diego Forlan How would one know? Usually we know a friend who works somewhere and they say the company is shit. Or you work somewhere and someone doesn't work so you end up thinking they're shit. It's not often that you have both sides of the story. >very few wrote books, Books might indicate a good communicator and independent ability to complete a task but it's not an indication that someone is a good team member that fulfills a particular role. >verfy few created a foundational open source project, etc... I contend that this actually risks being a Balotelli. Good in the right atmosphere, but very independent and often stroppy when they don't get their way. They can be terrific in their element but often they're not good enough to build a team around.

sqeaky 9y ago
I would argue I know because I have done many interviews, not nearly as many as the author of the article. Most interviewer candidate are about as qualified as a stuffed animal, except I would allow a stuffed animal in the office because they tend not to break things. I agree with you that on your points about books and project founding, but I would hear a candidate out and not make hard unchangeable presumptions. As for how do I "know" I can't know, I am only in the interview for an hour or two. The best I can do is get a sense. If the candidate nails fizzbuzz, explain the nuances of git v mercurial for 20 minutes and provides a plausible explanation for his previous place of employments toxicity then that affects my decision making one way. If it feel as though their reasons are thinly veiled excuses, they don't know foundational tools or fail at fizzbuzz... well I don't let interviews proceed to where people fail all three when they start with some minor points against them. Too many red flags and I call it done.

sqeaky 9y ago

I would argue I know because I have done many interviews, not nearly as many as the author of the article. Most interviewer candidate are about as qualified as a stuffed animal, except I would allow a stuffed animal in the office because they tend not to break things. I agree with you that on your points about books and project founding, but I would hear a candidate out and not make hard unchangeable presumptions. As for how do I "know" I can't know, I am only in the interview for an hour or two. The best I can do is get a sense. If the candidate nails fizzbuzz, explain the nuances of git v mercurial for 20 minutes and provides a plausible explanation for his previous place of employments toxicity then that affects my decision making one way. If it feel as though their reasons are thinly veiled excuses, they don't know foundational tools or fail at fizzbuzz... well I don't let interviews proceed to where people fail all three when they start with some minor points against them. Too many red flags and I call it done.