:) With the first round of hiring I looked at how far the candidate got in fixing the bug. There was a workaround and then there was a fix for the root cause.

:) With the first round of hiring I looked at how far the candidate got in fixing the bug. There was a workaround and then there was a fix for the root cause. If the candidate found the workaround quickly then that was equal to fixing the root cause less quickly. Almost no-one actually fixed it though, so mostly it was a measure of progress. How efficient are you at developing hypotheses and testing them? How good are your hypotheses? Now in this round I can't cross-compare as easily, so I'm expecting it to be more subjective. Basically I'm looking for people that I have a hard time keeping up with.