3 ms·

This is so painful to read... > That was all we asked; we intentionally left it open-ended. > I let them know there was no time limit or minimum for how many

by coffee 6y ago

This is so painful to read... > That was all we asked; we intentionally left it open-ended. > I let them know there was no time limit or minimum for how many hours they had to work on it > But then over the next three paragraphs, they explained what they would have done. > Normally, I would have replied with well wishes on their challenges > When I came back, I had three replies in the email chain that just said, “Ship it.” > Why did this work well yet was a big deviation from what we had planned? > How did we get such a strong impression of them with very little code? > Do we even need code? How much code? Let’s try less. Let’s try none! Do we just skip to the phone screen and talk about how they would start? > Since then, I have moved away from coding tests altogether. > ..that don’t require them spending a whole night coding for just a chance at an interview.

kbenson 6y ago
> This is so painful to read... What's the painful part? That it could have been much more terse but you ended up having to read the whole thing? If so, I kind of find your comment "painful" (not the words I would use if you hadn't) in a similar way at a high level, if for different low-level reasons. You provided very little information on what your found objectionable, and simply quoted select sentences from the the article. I think the fact I'm not even sure I'm correctly interpreting your comment explains the problem with that. I'm not sure the article is too long, maybe it is, but I definitely think your comment is lacking enough information to convey your point accurately.
- Jaygles 6y ago
  I think he misread the end and believes that the person didn't completely nixed the coding tests but instead offer what they believe to be "easier" tests.
  - coffee 6y ago
    No, I didn't misread the end. I understand it (along with the rest of the post) very clearly.
- coffee 6y ago
  Wow. This response (and how you responded to it) really illustrates, to me, the problem with hiring in the first place when placing those hiring choices in the hands of engineers that don't have hiring skills. > What's the painful part? The parts that I outlined. > That it could have been much more terse but you ended up having to read the whole thing? Nope. > I'm not even sure I'm correctly interpreting your comment Yup. > but I definitely think your comment is lacking enough information to convey your point accurately Right, so if it was an issue for YOU, one good choice in the future would be to engage me in a discussion. Ask a simple follow up question. "Hey, I didn't understand your comment, what did you mean by that? I'm interested in finding out more..." This illustrates the state of hiring in our industry. Snap, terse, misunderstandings without exploring the idea that maybe the burden is on you to get some clairity if YOU don't understand something. "Hey, I didn't understand those lines of code, what did you indend to with that? I'm interested in finding out more..." Typically it falls inline with that the author of this article posted, he passes out an "open-ended" coding task as a pre-interview, get's something back, most likely "replied with well wishes" and moved on. They didn't have the time, desire, skillsets, etc... to identify and engage.
  - Bjartr 6y ago
    He started his post with a clarifying question and said he wasn't sure if he was interpreting things correctly. So from what I can read, he's already done what you're suggesting he do. Or was the issue that it wasn't asked in sufficiently conversational prose, which is the primary difference I can see between what he wrote and what you suggest?
    - coffee 6y ago
      That is not an accurate representation.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    > Right, so if it was an issue for YOU, one good choice in the future would be to engage me in a discussion. Ask a simple follow up question. "What's the painful part?" was the first thing I wrote. > This illustrates the state of hiring in our industry. Snap, terse, misunderstandings without exploring the idea that maybe the burden is on you to get some clairity if YOU don't understand something. I explained that I had a hard time understanding what your point was, I explained that it was because of your lack of explanation (you could even say it was terse, which is why I'm surprised you level that accusation at me), and I asked you to clarify. Perhaps you're offended that I said I found it painful? I made sure to note I was only using that phrasing because you did. My purpose in doing so was to note that it's not a very constructive way to criticize. If you did find yourself ion any way offended by that, please consider how you originally presented your position, and whether that was a constructive way to do so. > This illustrates the state of hiring in our industry. This exchange? Maybe it does! I did everything you criticize me for here, yet you somehow failed to see it. I think perhaps there is a lesson here somewhere.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

by coffee 6y ago

kbenson 6y ago

> This is so painful to read... What's the painful part? That it could have been much more terse but you ended up having to read the whole thing? If so, I kind of find your comment "painful" (not the words I would use if you hadn't) in a similar way at a high level, if for different low-level reasons. You provided very little information on what your found objectionable, and simply quoted select sentences from the the article. I think the fact I'm not even sure I'm correctly interpreting your comment explains the problem with that. I'm not sure the article is too long, maybe it is, but I definitely think your comment is lacking enough information to convey your point accurately.

Jaygles 6y ago
I think he misread the end and believes that the person didn't completely nixed the coding tests but instead offer what they believe to be "easier" tests.
- coffee 6y ago
  No, I didn't misread the end. I understand it (along with the rest of the post) very clearly.
coffee 6y ago
Wow. This response (and how you responded to it) really illustrates, to me, the problem with hiring in the first place when placing those hiring choices in the hands of engineers that don't have hiring skills. > What's the painful part? The parts that I outlined. > That it could have been much more terse but you ended up having to read the whole thing? Nope. > I'm not even sure I'm correctly interpreting your comment Yup. > but I definitely think your comment is lacking enough information to convey your point accurately Right, so if it was an issue for YOU, one good choice in the future would be to engage me in a discussion. Ask a simple follow up question. "Hey, I didn't understand your comment, what did you mean by that? I'm interested in finding out more..." This illustrates the state of hiring in our industry. Snap, terse, misunderstandings without exploring the idea that maybe the burden is on you to get some clairity if YOU don't understand something. "Hey, I didn't understand those lines of code, what did you indend to with that? I'm interested in finding out more..." Typically it falls inline with that the author of this article posted, he passes out an "open-ended" coding task as a pre-interview, get's something back, most likely "replied with well wishes" and moved on. They didn't have the time, desire, skillsets, etc... to identify and engage.
- Bjartr 6y ago
  He started his post with a clarifying question and said he wasn't sure if he was interpreting things correctly. So from what I can read, he's already done what you're suggesting he do. Or was the issue that it wasn't asked in sufficiently conversational prose, which is the primary difference I can see between what he wrote and what you suggest?
  - coffee 6y ago
    That is not an accurate representation.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > Right, so if it was an issue for YOU, one good choice in the future would be to engage me in a discussion. Ask a simple follow up question. "What's the painful part?" was the first thing I wrote. > This illustrates the state of hiring in our industry. Snap, terse, misunderstandings without exploring the idea that maybe the burden is on you to get some clairity if YOU don't understand something. I explained that I had a hard time understanding what your point was, I explained that it was because of your lack of explanation (you could even say it was terse, which is why I'm surprised you level that accusation at me), and I asked you to clarify. Perhaps you're offended that I said I found it painful? I made sure to note I was only using that phrasing because you did. My purpose in doing so was to note that it's not a very constructive way to criticize. If you did find yourself ion any way offended by that, please consider how you originally presented your position, and whether that was a constructive way to do so. > This illustrates the state of hiring in our industry. This exchange? Maybe it does! I did everything you criticize me for here, yet you somehow failed to see it. I think perhaps there is a lesson here somewhere.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]