11 ms·
> Why interviewers were all transcribing the whiteboard rather than taking photos I have no clue. It makes it easier to reason about the code. It's the diffe
by bumper_crop 4y ago
> Why interviewers were all transcribing the whiteboard rather than taking photos I have no clue.
It makes it easier to reason about the code. It's the difference between typing out the answer from Stack Overflow, v.s. copy pasting it. At least for me, writing the code down at the speed the candidate does triggers the error checking part of my brain.
- readams 4y agoIt's just because the interviewing tool you have to put your notes into at Google takes text and not pictures :-). The hiring committee will actually look at this, and this is a different person from the interviewer.
- cperciva 4y agoOk, but they were transcribing from the whiteboard onto paper. So everything I wrote must have been transcribed twice before it reached the hiring committee.
- joatmon-snoo 4y ago2006 was... early. I don't remember when HCs were formed, but there's no way the internal ATS had any level of sophistication, if it even existed then. (Admittedly this is all years before my time.)
- cperciva 4y agoFrom what the recruiter told me, there was a hiring committee but their recommendations had to be approved by the founders before an offer could go out.
- teirce 4y agoIsn't this a bit of revisionist thinking? I don't know that cameras of that quality were commonplace in 2006. It's not like you could just pull out your iPhone. And most digital cameras weren't much better (i.e. I wouldn't trust being able to read handwriting from their pictures). So then what, you supply each interviewer with a roll of film and a company darkroom? It's also easier to write your own notes down this way too.
- lekevicius 4y ago> between typing out the answer from Stack Overflow, v.s. copy pasting it Thanks to co-pilot, these are approaching being one and the same (: