5 ms·

On the receiving end it weeded out a huge number of bad candidates. Along with (as was the main point of the original blog post) probably quite a few false neg

by vanusa 5y ago

On the receiving end it weeded out a huge number of bad candidates. Along with (as was the main point of the original blog post) probably quite a few false negatives, Like the author of that post, for example. Meanwhile, you can achieve the same filtering benefit by far less obnoxious and more accurate means (a cursory glance at their repo, fore example).

kevinburke 5y ago
People say this but then they reject answers that e.g correctly code the brute force solution or they don’t provide an algorithm to code for, so it’s not just “can you code,” it’s can you find the optimal algorithm and also code it, and usually the algorithm isn’t trivial or one you’d ever run into at work.
wiseowise 5y ago
I'd rather filter out good candidate than let bad in. It's a domino effect. You let one bad, he will hire more in the future.
- klipklop 5y ago
  I always hear this but never seen proof. If they are bad how do they get into a position that lets them make hiring decisions? Everyone likes to think they are the good candidate and not the bad one that slipped through…
  - wiseowise 5y ago
    > If they are bad how do they get into a position that lets them make hiring decisions? We have flat hierarchy. Just volunteer to interview because your voice is on the same level as others.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - GoOnThenDoTell 5y ago
    When they put it in the promo committee calibration doc that X level has done Y interviews per quarter, they end up on interview loops but then feel they must say no to Z% else they’re not “raising the bar”
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > You let one bad, he will hire more in the future. When your organization can recognize a poor investment but cannot act on it, you have an organizational problem. Why would someone get to hire more "bad" (for whatever that means) if you can recognize it? Even if you're doing all the hiring yourself, it's unlikely you'll have a 100% record over time.
  - marcinzm 5y ago
    Most companies have organizational problems. So a system that only works if you don't will fail for the majority of companies.
    - vanusa 5y ago
      Most companies have organizational problems. Right. But we can't talk about that, of course. Instead the corrective strategy seems to be: "Let's torture some more candidates. It's cheap and it's easy, after all."
  - quietbritishjim 5y ago
    For one thing, in many countries it's hard to get rid of a poor employee unless they're malicious or really exceptionally terrible. For another, even if "an organisational problem" or inconvenient labour laws don't get in your way, firing employees can have a serious effect on the morale of those left behind. And for good reason! Usually companies that regularly fire people for poor performance has a different sort of culture than companies that don't. In my experience, that's the worse organisational problem. The right solution is just to be more careful about who you hire in the first place.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Isn't this why there are trial periods ( no idea if it's a thing in the US with the "right to work" thing)?. Over here in the EU a work contract can't be terminated from the company just like that, there needs to be a specific reason ( like downsizing, or a serious error), and you can't quit just like that a mandatory notice period is required ( of course negotiable depending on the situation), usually in the 1-3 months range. Therefore there's a trial period at the beginning, 3-6 months usually, during which any party can end the employment with a very small notice ( a day or two). So if someone lied their way through interviews, in the first couple of months you should be able to detect that and terminate their trial period.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > So if someone lied their way through interviews, in the first couple of months you should be able to detect that and terminate their trial period. Managers hates firing people, it is really uncomfortable. So instead of firing this person to look for a new, they keep the person and say they need even more headcount and hope the next one is better.
    - marcos100 5y ago
      Totally, it's like admitting that you don't know how to hire. And it's worse if HR is involved.
  - marcinzm 5y ago
    In the US you are always on a trial period. The problem is that firing people is annoying and bad for team morale. More importantly even dealing with a bad coworker is really bad for team morale. No one wants to join a company that is likely to fire them in 3 months because the company f-ed up their own hiring process. No one wants to recommend their connections join a company where that is likely to happen. Made worse due to a lot of compensation is tied to staying a year at a company so leaving early is basically getting paid 50% for that time.
    - baskethead 5y ago
- baskethead 5y ago
  The question is whether or not your interviewing practices filter out bad candidates. If your entire company has no employees then maybe but I find that hard to believe.
nijave 5y ago
A lot of candidates don't have public repos and you need an equal comparison across all candidates (you can introduce a lot of bias trying to gauge two candidates against different sets of criteria)
- vanusa 5y ago
  A lot of candidates don't have public repos It doesn't have to be a public repo of course. They can just send zip file. You need an equal comparison across all candidates. "We'd like to see a code sample -- something we can build and compile, that you feel is representative of your skill level." Sounds pretty straightforward and egalitarian to me.
  - detaro 5y ago
    I'm curious, if we exclude all your open-source work (assuming you have some), what did/would you submit when given the question?
    - vanusa 5y ago
      Floppy disk? A printout? Long before open source was a thing, and repos were even thought of -- I always had a few 1,000+ line personal projects I could dig up and show people.
      - detaro 5y ago
        right, and plenty people don't have large personal projects, or not personal projects that align with their work skillset, and the question is extremely vague what scope you're looking for.
        vanusa 5y ago
        Right - it's a bar, and some people won't meet that bar. And that said - a pretty minimal bar. 1,000 lines isn't that large, btw - but yeah, maybe 500 would be a better number.

by vanusa 5y ago

kevinburke 5y ago

People say this but then they reject answers that e.g correctly code the brute force solution or they don’t provide an algorithm to code for, so it’s not just “can you code,” it’s can you find the optimal algorithm and also code it, and usually the algorithm isn’t trivial or one you’d ever run into at work.

wiseowise 5y ago

I'd rather filter out good candidate than let bad in. It's a domino effect. You let one bad, he will hire more in the future.

klipklop 5y ago
I always hear this but never seen proof. If they are bad how do they get into a position that lets them make hiring decisions? Everyone likes to think they are the good candidate and not the bad one that slipped through…
- wiseowise 5y ago
  > If they are bad how do they get into a position that lets them make hiring decisions? We have flat hierarchy. Just volunteer to interview because your voice is on the same level as others.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- GoOnThenDoTell 5y ago
  When they put it in the promo committee calibration doc that X level has done Y interviews per quarter, they end up on interview loops but then feel they must say no to Z% else they’re not “raising the bar”
Supermancho 5y ago
> You let one bad, he will hire more in the future. When your organization can recognize a poor investment but cannot act on it, you have an organizational problem. Why would someone get to hire more "bad" (for whatever that means) if you can recognize it? Even if you're doing all the hiring yourself, it's unlikely you'll have a 100% record over time.
- marcinzm 5y ago
  Most companies have organizational problems. So a system that only works if you don't will fail for the majority of companies.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    Most companies have organizational problems. Right. But we can't talk about that, of course. Instead the corrective strategy seems to be: "Let's torture some more candidates. It's cheap and it's easy, after all."
- quietbritishjim 5y ago
  For one thing, in many countries it's hard to get rid of a poor employee unless they're malicious or really exceptionally terrible. For another, even if "an organisational problem" or inconvenient labour laws don't get in your way, firing employees can have a serious effect on the morale of those left behind. And for good reason! Usually companies that regularly fire people for poor performance has a different sort of culture than companies that don't. In my experience, that's the worse organisational problem. The right solution is just to be more careful about who you hire in the first place.
sofixa 5y ago
Isn't this why there are trial periods ( no idea if it's a thing in the US with the "right to work" thing)?. Over here in the EU a work contract can't be terminated from the company just like that, there needs to be a specific reason ( like downsizing, or a serious error), and you can't quit just like that a mandatory notice period is required ( of course negotiable depending on the situation), usually in the 1-3 months range. Therefore there's a trial period at the beginning, 3-6 months usually, during which any party can end the employment with a very small notice ( a day or two). So if someone lied their way through interviews, in the first couple of months you should be able to detect that and terminate their trial period.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > So if someone lied their way through interviews, in the first couple of months you should be able to detect that and terminate their trial period. Managers hates firing people, it is really uncomfortable. So instead of firing this person to look for a new, they keep the person and say they need even more headcount and hope the next one is better.
  - marcos100 5y ago
    Totally, it's like admitting that you don't know how to hire. And it's worse if HR is involved.
- marcinzm 5y ago
  In the US you are always on a trial period. The problem is that firing people is annoying and bad for team morale. More importantly even dealing with a bad coworker is really bad for team morale. No one wants to join a company that is likely to fire them in 3 months because the company f-ed up their own hiring process. No one wants to recommend their connections join a company where that is likely to happen. Made worse due to a lot of compensation is tied to staying a year at a company so leaving early is basically getting paid 50% for that time.
  - baskethead 5y ago
baskethead 5y ago
The question is whether or not your interviewing practices filter out bad candidates. If your entire company has no employees then maybe but I find that hard to believe.

nijave 5y ago

A lot of candidates don't have public repos and you need an equal comparison across all candidates (you can introduce a lot of bias trying to gauge two candidates against different sets of criteria)

vanusa 5y ago
A lot of candidates don't have public repos It doesn't have to be a public repo of course. They can just send zip file. You need an equal comparison across all candidates. "We'd like to see a code sample -- something we can build and compile, that you feel is representative of your skill level." Sounds pretty straightforward and egalitarian to me.
- detaro 5y ago
  I'm curious, if we exclude all your open-source work (assuming you have some), what did/would you submit when given the question?
  - vanusa 5y ago
    Floppy disk? A printout? Long before open source was a thing, and repos were even thought of -- I always had a few 1,000+ line personal projects I could dig up and show people.
    - detaro 5y ago
      right, and plenty people don't have large personal projects, or not personal projects that align with their work skillset, and the question is extremely vague what scope you're looking for.
      - vanusa 5y ago
        Right - it's a bar, and some people won't meet that bar. And that said - a pretty minimal bar. 1,000 lines isn't that large, btw - but yeah, maybe 500 would be a better number.