4 ms·

This is a good idea. It needs more features and polish, but I see no good reason why someone would NOT use this for hiring. I think the especially important p

by thejash 16y ago

This is a good idea. It needs more features and polish, but I see no good reason why someone would NOT use this for hiring. I think the especially important points will be: 1. Support for all reasonable languages. 2. LOTS of different tests--the more unique, the less likely the solutions can be copied and pasted from either someplace online, or a friend who applied and took the same test. It would also be awesome if you told the candidate "program in this window because the employer will be able to watch you code". Then show the employer a fast-forward view of the programming process. Does this person guess and check their way to a solution? Do they plan out the whole algorithm first? What kind of mistakes did they make? If you had all that stuff, I think this would do a reasonable job of at least filtering for raw programming ability.

kranner 16y ago
Thanks for the encouragement! (Boy do I need it) - On lots of test problems: that's exactly what I intend to do. New test problems will be introduced into the private/paid queue and after they have been delivered enough times, they will be moved to the open/free queue. - Of a fast-forward movie of the candidate coding: I'm a bit skeptical of this one. I'd really rather let people code on their own computers (in their favourite editors) first. Also, if I were the candidate, it'd annoy me a bit to be judged negatively on, for instance, typing errors and private comments while I'm fleshing the code out. But that's just what I think; if enough people ask for it, I'll add it.
tomjen3 16y ago
>This is a good idea. It needs more features and polish, but I see no good reason why someone would NOT use this for hiring Other than, as Joel pointed out a long time ago - the best people wouldn't put up with it because they can always get a job elsewhere. >It would also be awesome if you told the candidate "program in this window because the employer will be able to watch you code". Then show the employer a fast-forward view of the programming process. Does this person guess and check their way to a solution? Do they plan out the whole algorithm first? What kind of mistakes did they make? Absolutely not - I program in a real editor, and I won't be judged by some wannabe textbox.
- kabdib 16y ago
  I'd hit ^A and some other key and everything would be lost. Seriously, you'll lose your better qualified candidates if you force them to use a strange editor.
- mcknz 16y ago
  It would depend on the company -- the "best" people would be more willing to write some code if [insert awesome company here] was using the tool, versus a company like Initech. Would be a plus if eventually the tool could behave more like an IDE.
  - Retric 16y ago
    You might be surprised; I am not exactly the best of the best, but I personally have zero interest in applying to Google because of their ridicules process. Of the best programmers I know, one owns his own consulting company and the other has been actively recruited through his last several jobs. He literally has not put together a resume in 20 years. PS: The best example of the gap between these guys and the average programmer: He once released a bug into production and asked the testers what happened. They said, "We stopped testing your code last year. It seemed like a waste of time." They also requested he spent the night of Y2K in AT&T's bunker, just in case.
- thejash 16y ago
  > the best people wouldn't put up with it because they can always get a job elsewhere. How are you supposed to know that someone is one of the "best people"? Presumably by word of mouth and recommendations. I'm not saying that all applicants should be forced to use this system--if you know that someone is great, no need to test them. This is designed to filter out all the REST of the applicants, the ones who may be good, but don't have many references (straight out of college, etc) > Absolutely not - I program in a real editor, and I won't be judged by some wannabe textbox. Fair enough (I enjoy using a decent editor too), but: 1. These are not supposed to be hundred line solutions. You can live with a crappy editor for 30 minutes. 2. Maybe applicants could submit a video instead if they wanted. 3. It's not strictly necessary, it's just another nice data point.

by thejash 16y ago

kranner 16y ago

Thanks for the encouragement! (Boy do I need it) - On lots of test problems: that's exactly what I intend to do. New test problems will be introduced into the private/paid queue and after they have been delivered enough times, they will be moved to the open/free queue. - Of a fast-forward movie of the candidate coding: I'm a bit skeptical of this one. I'd really rather let people code on their own computers (in their favourite editors) first. Also, if I were the candidate, it'd annoy me a bit to be judged negatively on, for instance, typing errors and private comments while I'm fleshing the code out. But that's just what I think; if enough people ask for it, I'll add it.

tomjen3 16y ago

>This is a good idea. It needs more features and polish, but I see no good reason why someone would NOT use this for hiring Other than, as Joel pointed out a long time ago - the best people wouldn't put up with it because they can always get a job elsewhere. >It would also be awesome if you told the candidate "program in this window because the employer will be able to watch you code". Then show the employer a fast-forward view of the programming process. Does this person guess and check their way to a solution? Do they plan out the whole algorithm first? What kind of mistakes did they make? Absolutely not - I program in a real editor, and I won't be judged by some wannabe textbox.

kabdib 16y ago
I'd hit ^A and some other key and everything would be lost. Seriously, you'll lose your better qualified candidates if you force them to use a strange editor.
mcknz 16y ago
It would depend on the company -- the "best" people would be more willing to write some code if [insert awesome company here] was using the tool, versus a company like Initech. Would be a plus if eventually the tool could behave more like an IDE.
- Retric 16y ago
  You might be surprised; I am not exactly the best of the best, but I personally have zero interest in applying to Google because of their ridicules process. Of the best programmers I know, one owns his own consulting company and the other has been actively recruited through his last several jobs. He literally has not put together a resume in 20 years. PS: The best example of the gap between these guys and the average programmer: He once released a bug into production and asked the testers what happened. They said, "We stopped testing your code last year. It seemed like a waste of time." They also requested he spent the night of Y2K in AT&T's bunker, just in case.
thejash 16y ago
> the best people wouldn't put up with it because they can always get a job elsewhere. How are you supposed to know that someone is one of the "best people"? Presumably by word of mouth and recommendations. I'm not saying that all applicants should be forced to use this system--if you know that someone is great, no need to test them. This is designed to filter out all the REST of the applicants, the ones who may be good, but don't have many references (straight out of college, etc) > Absolutely not - I program in a real editor, and I won't be judged by some wannabe textbox. Fair enough (I enjoy using a decent editor too), but: 1. These are not supposed to be hundred line solutions. You can live with a crappy editor for 30 minutes. 2. Maybe applicants could submit a video instead if they wanted. 3. It's not strictly necessary, it's just another nice data point.