4 ms·

I appreciate the feedback, but don't think I fall into, nor describe in the linked blog post, the interviewer category you describe (though it is certainly poss

by brianm 16y ago

I appreciate the feedback, but don't think I fall into, nor describe in the linked blog post, the interviewer category you describe (though it is certainly possible I do and just don't realize it). Do you consider this question to be unanswerable? As I stated, I'll accept pretty much any viable answer, my goal is to get folk to design something ~realistic (okay, this is a simplistic system, but we have finite time in an interview slot). Honestly, I think the question I blogged about is pretty straightforward, and exists for purposes of framing a discussion about real systems and constraints. There is no answer I was fishing for at any point I used this question. "Questions like the one in this blog post are tell-tale signs of alpha-geek interview dominance gone wild," is so far off base from what I am trying to convey that I think I utterly failed to convey my point, which was quite literally the opposite :-(

Retric 16y ago
Do you consider this question to be unanswerable? Yes. Given a little time I could come up with 20 or more so ways of doing this. As to which one I would use that's not really answerable in an interview. The problem with questions like this is two weeks is a fairly long period of time. If it's literally all your working on then researching a few options and then asking some more questions is the best place to start. aka Is the access pattern random or would caching be useful? Is the data private? etc.
variety 16y ago
Part of what's problematic about this interviewing approach is that while your (secret) internal mindset may be "I'll accept pretty much any viable answer", the full-court-press interviewing style effects the exact opposite impression on the candidate -- they're left thinking, "gosh, I have to get this right, dammit, no room for slack, can't leave out any details AT ALL or it's back to another month of ramen and job boards trolling." So yes, with your interviewing technique (orthogonal to the technical content of the question itself) you've succeeded in conveying a stance and mindset that is quite literally the opposite of what you intended.
- jholman 16y ago
  Is "full-court press" and "your interviewing technique" from personal experience with the OP? Or just from reading the article? Because all I got from the article is that he has lots and lots of follow-up directions. I.e., that he is prepared.
  - variety 16y ago
    From the article. The flip side of the fact that the interviewer has had time to carefully prepare while the interviewee has not is that what you get from that inherently contrived, lopsided discussion, kind of a long, drawn-out game of "gotcha." Fun for the <strike>interrogator</strike> interviewer, but tedious and buzz-killing for the interviewee. It provides insight, yes, but a certain cost: many candidates fine this approach simply alienating, and more to the point, it upsets their thought processes (such that they don't really get a chance to shine). As a candidate you can train for this kind of confrontational approach, of course, but I think lrm242 nailed what's most alienating about this interviewing style -- that ultimately the candidate is put into a position that's basically uncomfortable to be in, where they have to _placate_ their interlocuter according to some hidden criteria set -- and mostly they just want that particular thread to be overwith as soon as possible. I just think we can get the same insight into candidates from different ways, where things are more on an even keel, and there's more "flow."[1] It takes more tact and creativity (and perhaps a bit more time), but it's not that hard, is more mutually enjoyable and (I think) ultimately provides a lot more insight. [1] "flow" being of course a very important concept; e.g. in the sense of Murakami.

by brianm 16y ago

Retric 16y ago

Do you consider this question to be unanswerable? Yes. Given a little time I could come up with 20 or more so ways of doing this. As to which one I would use that's not really answerable in an interview. The problem with questions like this is two weeks is a fairly long period of time. If it's literally all your working on then researching a few options and then asking some more questions is the best place to start. aka Is the access pattern random or would caching be useful? Is the data private? etc.

variety 16y ago

Part of what's problematic about this interviewing approach is that while your (secret) internal mindset may be "I'll accept pretty much any viable answer", the full-court-press interviewing style effects the exact opposite impression on the candidate -- they're left thinking, "gosh, I have to get this right, dammit, no room for slack, can't leave out any details AT ALL or it's back to another month of ramen and job boards trolling." So yes, with your interviewing technique (orthogonal to the technical content of the question itself) you've succeeded in conveying a stance and mindset that is quite literally the opposite of what you intended.

jholman 16y ago
Is "full-court press" and "your interviewing technique" from personal experience with the OP? Or just from reading the article? Because all I got from the article is that he has lots and lots of follow-up directions. I.e., that he is prepared.
- variety 16y ago
  From the article. The flip side of the fact that the interviewer has had time to carefully prepare while the interviewee has not is that what you get from that inherently contrived, lopsided discussion, kind of a long, drawn-out game of "gotcha." Fun for the <strike>interrogator</strike> interviewer, but tedious and buzz-killing for the interviewee. It provides insight, yes, but a certain cost: many candidates fine this approach simply alienating, and more to the point, it upsets their thought processes (such that they don't really get a chance to shine). As a candidate you can train for this kind of confrontational approach, of course, but I think lrm242 nailed what's most alienating about this interviewing style -- that ultimately the candidate is put into a position that's basically uncomfortable to be in, where they have to _placate_ their interlocuter according to some hidden criteria set -- and mostly they just want that particular thread to be overwith as soon as possible. I just think we can get the same insight into candidates from different ways, where things are more on an even keel, and there's more "flow."[1] It takes more tact and creativity (and perhaps a bit more time), but it's not that hard, is more mutually enjoyable and (I think) ultimately provides a lot more insight. [1] "flow" being of course a very important concept; e.g. in the sense of Murakami.