Google said I should try contributing to an open source project to improve my resume... when I had literally a million lines of code in a major open source project, and that was written on my resume.
Was it a mistake? Was there a mixup and had they interviewed me thinking I was someone else? Did they have a corrupt copy of my resume? More likely was it a throwaway comment from someone just saying something to be polite? No idea, but it's more frustrating than just 'no thanks' because it didn't even make any sense.
Imagine if you tried to improve yourself based on that feedback, applied again, and then they overlooked it again and gave you the same feedback!
Feels like a very similar occurrence to what happened to the homebrew dev who got reject by google (albeit different circumstance to your false feedback)
There's a non-zero chance that the Google interviewers were able to pick up on this. Those of us not directly involved only ever got one side of this particular story.
This interview system is frustrating. I had 4 calls where I talked to the same recruiter thrice for this company I'm applying to. It doesn't sound like much but when you're in my situation wasting a few minutes is precious time. I'm driving 3 hours down and back to a full-day interview at said company. I had to take PTO. What do you tell your boss? I told em I had a drs appointment, luckily they bought it. I don't want to get harassed for looking for another job, it happens here.
Does it really take a full day to find out whether someone is a good programmer? I'd argue it takes longer. We just hired someone who washed out after 2 weeks without finishing a (significant) ticket.
Maybe instead of these nutty run-the-gauntlet interviews we should focus more on work-to-hire month long programs, with some guaranteed compensation if you fail(so that you are compensated for the risk of switching). I don't know. The current system is stupid.
I have gotten offers from a few major companies. But cramming this stupid Interview shit (What's the difference between an abstract class and an interface in Java?) when I've been running Golang, Python and Ruby for the past 3 years isn't fun. I should stop writing this comment and get back to studying.
If you think you got shitty candidates with your old system, this would only get you desperate ones.
Community service projects? I maintain a bibliography I have on there, and I write a local history book on my GitHub. I made a website for a conference on there recently.
Slides, notes and code from conference talks you've given?
Hobbies? I used to have some repositories with things related to the sport I play.
Open source projects you contribute to in the course of your work?
Notes and experiments you make while learning about technology like new languages and libraries?
You must have done at least something like those ideas at some point in your life?
I mean you obviously don't have to if you don't want to and I don't know anything about your personal situation, but if you do want to have a GitHub profile I'm sure there's tons of things you're involved in in your life that you could upload even if you work at the NSA or something.
It is, I wouldn't entertain companies that do this unless you really need a position.
This is the trifecta of bad interviewing tests:
- No compensation
- Stupidly restrictive time limit
- High chance of not getting feedback
Personally I would turn them down and then explain these three things. There are plenty of companies with less annoying hoops.
This one kills the chance of my applying by itself. Turns what could be a interesting coding challenge into an exam, ruining the fun of it. I could see junior devs going through this to get some experience but why would anyone past that point in their career bother when there are so many options?
Curious if anybody has ever billed the interviewing company for their time if they didn't get the job.
But in a market like the current one, many developers can do some filtering of their own. When I'm asked to complete a test or exercise, over time I've made it a habit to ask questions like these:
- Do you have reference solutions that someone at the company completed on company time?
- Exactly how long did it take them?
- Do you have a rubric for evaluating submitted solutions?
- Will you share the reference solutions and/or rubric once I've submitted mine?
I don't need 100% positive/detailed answers to each one of these -- I know from the other side why they're not always there -- but how people respond seems to improve my early feel for (a) how the organization approaches process and problem-solving and (b) whether my solutions are likely to get a serious examination and useful feedback, which I can then use to inform my choice about whether putting in the time is worth it.
What frustrated me is that my solution passed all of the disclosed scenarios, but failed about half of the non disclosed. Neither the input nor output was disclosed. How do you expect someone to solve a problem when you dont disclose either the inputs or the expected output?
https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-companies-give-interview-feed...