3 ms·

"If you browse my link you'll see that Google continues to ask off-topic questions, even if they aren't riddles or brainteasers. " I have read literally thous

"If you browse my link you'll see that Google continues to ask off-topic questions, even if they aren't riddles or brainteasers. " I have read literally thousands of interviews at Google (both on hiring committees for 10+ years and in the group that reviews hiring committee decisions), and i just don't encounter them much. I can't even remember the last time i read this type of question. I suspect your definition may be different than mine. I do see that new grads/folks without a ton of experience get asked more questions to test fundamentals (not riddles), and folks otherwise get asked to just solve problems. I have also seen occasional a few unscored warmup questions that are more abstract/riddlish for nervous people, but even that's pretty uncommon. It's usually small talk about resume instead. Interviewers are also deliberately pushed to ask different questions if the candidate is not doing well (though it's slow to change interviewing behavior on this). Rather have signal on more questions than knowing that they really did badly on a single thing. That means they may change style/abstractness of question depending on how interviewee is doing.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago
The problem is off topic questions, especially for more senior developers who have specialized extensively. For example, I haven’t used or seen used dynamic programming since college because my area doesn’t really use it. If I didn’t cram in interview prep for these questions, I’d be toast.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  I get it (really!), but balance this against the fact that many companies promote people just for surviving at the company long enough. I've seen principal engineers (where this was the top of their ladder) that literally couldn't tell me what a hash table is. For domain experts, Google actually does target domain specific areas (in at least 1 interview) and weigh it against how good people are generally. However, I suspect most people think they are specialized experts in things they are not.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    I wish programmers were treated more like designers with a portfolio review. I’ve implemented so many cool things, yet somehow I’m judged based on some esoteric programming problem. It’s like I’m an interchangeable cog who is being evaluated on how well I can be a cog....heck, HR and often even interviewers often don’t bother looking at your CV. Dammit, I do compilers, not chatbots! The really great jobs I’ve had didn’t really require interviews at all, they knew who I was and knew what I’ve done and what I could do, and that was good enough.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

The problem is off topic questions, especially for more senior developers who have specialized extensively. For example, I haven’t used or seen used dynamic programming since college because my area doesn’t really use it. If I didn’t cram in interview prep for these questions, I’d be toast.

DannyBee 8y ago
I get it (really!), but balance this against the fact that many companies promote people just for surviving at the company long enough. I've seen principal engineers (where this was the top of their ladder) that literally couldn't tell me what a hash table is. For domain experts, Google actually does target domain specific areas (in at least 1 interview) and weigh it against how good people are generally. However, I suspect most people think they are specialized experts in things they are not.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  I wish programmers were treated more like designers with a portfolio review. I’ve implemented so many cool things, yet somehow I’m judged based on some esoteric programming problem. It’s like I’m an interchangeable cog who is being evaluated on how well I can be a cog....heck, HR and often even interviewers often don’t bother looking at your CV. Dammit, I do compilers, not chatbots! The really great jobs I’ve had didn’t really require interviews at all, they knew who I was and knew what I’ve done and what I could do, and that was good enough.