5 ms·
I don't understand the outrage. Some completed this in 7-8 minutes. That's quite a difference from spending hours without a result. Add a few of these proble
by fshaun 16y ago
I don't understand the outrage. Some completed this in 7-8 minutes. That's quite a difference from spending hours without a result. Add a few of these problems up (which I hope are representative of actual skills) and you're looking at minutes vs. days. Sure, the aside on resources comes off a bit flippant -- but it doesn't mean it's untrue.
- maukdaddy 16y ago1. Time to complete the task is a terrible metric for white-collar, knowledge work. There are myriad factors to explain the time discrepancies, especially since there wasn't first-hand observation. If this was a job for building a widget on a factory line, then time might be a reasonable metric. 2. Using time alone as a selection criteria borders on discrimination given that some users might have sight or other physical disabilities that require longer to complete the task. 3. Do you really want to work for someone that has that kind of attitude? Oh, you're worthless because you took a few hours longer than John over there. We're not even going to consider your other talents, abilities, capabilities, or creativity that you bring to the table.
- kessler 16y agoTo clarify - time it took to complete the challenge was never factored into the application process. We simply pulled this data because we thought it would make for an interesting metric to display in the post.
- fleitz 16y agoI just did it for the challenge, took me about 30 minutes, primarily because I didn't look at the cookies first and spend about 15 minutes wiring up greasemonkey to add an input field into the form. Turns out I needed this for the _csrf and cookie stuffing so it wasn't entirely a waste.