Well, you see, the potential cost of losing a good candidate is much less than the potential cost of hiring a bad candidate, so every effort should be made to prevent the latter.
There's a Joel on Software or Stack Overflow thing on this....
There's a Joel on Software or Stack Overflow thing on this....
When in reality I believe the hiring process follows some kind of logistic curve - after some point you're only getting very, very marginal returns on the extra effort spent.
Thinking of cost like this is very shallow
The post is not doing any favours and it is not convincing anybody to apply to the position, quite the contrary
And guess what, your company is not the shining star that has to make absolute sure to never have a bad hire. Sure, take the low-hanging fruit as early in the process as possible, but up to a certain point, more interviews won't mean better results
The issue is more that this process can't possibly be selecting for the best hires.