3 ms·

> ...different solutions do not equal bad solutions, and lack of knowledge on the part of the interviewer does not equal a bad solution. You've hit the nail on

by coffee 15y ago

> ...different solutions do not equal bad solutions, and lack of knowledge on the part of the interviewer does not equal a bad solution. You've hit the nail on the head (generally speaking, not directing this towards any one company). There are so many scenarios that lead to an interviewer being in the position they are in, and many times they just don't have a clue (sorry, but it's true). What impresses one person, turns another off. One company could be headed by someone who just learned Python (for example) and only knows one way of doing things. Any deviation from "their way" and that interviewee sucks. While another company could be run by someone who has broad multi disciplinary experience, and loves the fact that this interviewee solves a problem in a way they currently do not. It's a crap shoot... My experience has been that the people starting companies have VC funding dumped in their laps, are pushed to scale out their engineering team, not a lot of engineering experience behind them (they've been coding in one language for a year or two) and just don't know what talent really is. They just miss a lot of talented people, and then proclaim there are no good engineers available. It's a tough spot to be in... But a theme I'm starting to see emerge more and more...

kls 15y ago
My personal experience is the good/bad developer ratio is closer to 50/50 (with 10Xers on the top extreme and 10-ers on the bottom) than what is perceived in the industry. The rest is chalked up to differences of development practices because development is closer to a craft than a science, but when it comes to interviewing for many interviewers their brand of craft is the science and anything that does not, or cannot in the course of an hours interview conform to it is a bad developer. It is the reason that I have a long history of railing against the use of whiteboard tests in the interviewing process. I have seen case after case where interviewers hold applicants to a standard that they themselves do not maintain in their code. It is why delivery is the #1 indicator of a good developer, and in my opinion #2 is respect among peers, if a developer has a large network of developers that respect them, which can be verified via references, then they are a strong candidate. I have meet very few developers that can deliver a product who where not able to adapt to the way a team builds a product once they are in the door or adapt the team to their process if it is seen to be superior.
- coffee 15y ago
  > I have meet very few developers that can deliver a product who where not able to adapt to the way a team builds a product once they are in the door or adapt the team to their process if it is seen to be superior. Good point, and I totally agree. But how does one figure out the history of a developer delivering products? Or how does a developer let others know that they deliver products? Sure, references are great, but they must be taken with a grain of salt. No one is going to provide a reference that is negative. And if you sleuth a reference on your own that comes up negative, you have no context as to why it was not positive (personal differences, the reference you found is genuinely a bad egg, that person was intimidated by the skill level of another, etc...). I see a lot of people try to overcome this limitation with the "provide a link to your github account" statement. But that shows nothing of a persons ability to deliver software they have created for various companies who don't expose their code bases publicly. To me, this is a very strong, yet unmet need to be filled...
  - nireyal 15y ago
    Couldn't agree more with coffee's comment and am waiting for someone to figure out how to fill this need.
  - kls 15y ago
    For me, what I do, and what other in the industry advocate is to look at something they have built. Have them walk you through the functionality of using the software while narrating the code. Ask them questions, what part of the code base are you most proud off, what was the most difficult. How did you keep from stomping on other team members code. People are very forth coming when they talk about stuff that they know and passion and mastery show up pretty quick as in this format. Now I do understand that there are developers that for whatever reason do not have anything to show. When I run into this case, I look for nothing more than passion, if they have it I will offer them a junior role at a junior rate, if they claim to be a senior I tell them that I will match their rate (with back pay) that they are looking for in 30 days time, if it is proven to be the case once they are in the door. In 30 days I have my teams evaluate whether they qualify as a Senior. For references I look for nothing more than I am a developer at X and I think s/he is good. To me it is a vote by someone that claims to know software. I look at the applicants Linked-in profile and see how many developers they are connected to. If I struggle to find a few technical people, then I get the feeling that something is wrong. Conversely if they are connected to a good deal of developers then it is an indicator that they are at lest mildly respected in development circles. It's not a science, but I bat a pretty good average when it comes to hiring. My theory is that passion + above average intelligence + the proper environment = good developers, my job is to create that good environment, which I see as circular, an environment filled with passionate, intelligent people can be the seed of a proper environment. I think people overcomplicated it because development is complicated, but hiring developers is not that complicated for a technical person, they just have to abandon some biased views that the industry reinforces. The first being never hire for a position, if you are looking for a senior developer but a passionate junior walks through the door, don't loose the opportunity (assuming you are not totally boot strapped and can't afford it). Conversely, if a Senior in your or your teams network becomes available pick them up. If one of your team members respects them chances are they view their skills as at a peer level. You should accept your technical talents, technical judgment if you don't they have no business working on your technical systems at a senior level.

by coffee 15y ago

kls 15y ago

My personal experience is the good/bad developer ratio is closer to 50/50 (with 10Xers on the top extreme and 10-ers on the bottom) than what is perceived in the industry. The rest is chalked up to differences of development practices because development is closer to a craft than a science, but when it comes to interviewing for many interviewers their brand of craft is the science and anything that does not, or cannot in the course of an hours interview conform to it is a bad developer. It is the reason that I have a long history of railing against the use of whiteboard tests in the interviewing process. I have seen case after case where interviewers hold applicants to a standard that they themselves do not maintain in their code. It is why delivery is the #1 indicator of a good developer, and in my opinion #2 is respect among peers, if a developer has a large network of developers that respect them, which can be verified via references, then they are a strong candidate. I have meet very few developers that can deliver a product who where not able to adapt to the way a team builds a product once they are in the door or adapt the team to their process if it is seen to be superior.

coffee 15y ago
> I have meet very few developers that can deliver a product who where not able to adapt to the way a team builds a product once they are in the door or adapt the team to their process if it is seen to be superior. Good point, and I totally agree. But how does one figure out the history of a developer delivering products? Or how does a developer let others know that they deliver products? Sure, references are great, but they must be taken with a grain of salt. No one is going to provide a reference that is negative. And if you sleuth a reference on your own that comes up negative, you have no context as to why it was not positive (personal differences, the reference you found is genuinely a bad egg, that person was intimidated by the skill level of another, etc...). I see a lot of people try to overcome this limitation with the "provide a link to your github account" statement. But that shows nothing of a persons ability to deliver software they have created for various companies who don't expose their code bases publicly. To me, this is a very strong, yet unmet need to be filled...
- nireyal 15y ago
  Couldn't agree more with coffee's comment and am waiting for someone to figure out how to fill this need.
- kls 15y ago
  For me, what I do, and what other in the industry advocate is to look at something they have built. Have them walk you through the functionality of using the software while narrating the code. Ask them questions, what part of the code base are you most proud off, what was the most difficult. How did you keep from stomping on other team members code. People are very forth coming when they talk about stuff that they know and passion and mastery show up pretty quick as in this format. Now I do understand that there are developers that for whatever reason do not have anything to show. When I run into this case, I look for nothing more than passion, if they have it I will offer them a junior role at a junior rate, if they claim to be a senior I tell them that I will match their rate (with back pay) that they are looking for in 30 days time, if it is proven to be the case once they are in the door. In 30 days I have my teams evaluate whether they qualify as a Senior. For references I look for nothing more than I am a developer at X and I think s/he is good. To me it is a vote by someone that claims to know software. I look at the applicants Linked-in profile and see how many developers they are connected to. If I struggle to find a few technical people, then I get the feeling that something is wrong. Conversely if they are connected to a good deal of developers then it is an indicator that they are at lest mildly respected in development circles. It's not a science, but I bat a pretty good average when it comes to hiring. My theory is that passion + above average intelligence + the proper environment = good developers, my job is to create that good environment, which I see as circular, an environment filled with passionate, intelligent people can be the seed of a proper environment. I think people overcomplicated it because development is complicated, but hiring developers is not that complicated for a technical person, they just have to abandon some biased views that the industry reinforces. The first being never hire for a position, if you are looking for a senior developer but a passionate junior walks through the door, don't loose the opportunity (assuming you are not totally boot strapped and can't afford it). Conversely, if a Senior in your or your teams network becomes available pick them up. If one of your team members respects them chances are they view their skills as at a peer level. You should accept your technical talents, technical judgment if you don't they have no business working on your technical systems at a senior level.