I only said it was an embarrassment that he said that and that they asked such a patently irrelevant question and then rejected him. I think you read a lot more in to that tweet (and possibly the situation) than was actually there.
It's entirely possible that they rejected him for a perfectly reasonable reason, though there's nothing to really imply that that is so.
>For me, questions that assess honesty, optimism, curiosity, potential, and communication skills all rank higher than technical questions that are "realistic".
Ok, so if that's what you're really looking for, do your job adverts actually state at the top "we seek honest, optimistic, curious candidates with potential and communication skills?"
I've got to be honest I don't see many job adverts that state that and I think "able to do the job" ranks higher up the list of concerns for most employers than "has a sunny outlook on life". Still, if that's what you want...
Realistic tests will, if realistic, implicitly test honesty to a degree (the candidate will at some point have to admit that they don't know) and communication skills and many other important traits you might not even realize that you needed to select for - in proportion to their relevance to the role at hand.
>If there is, I wouldn't know it, but I think you're wrong. Do you know more than @mxcl tweeted? Do you know for a fact what happened?
A little, yes, but that's not the point. You don't know more than what he tweeted and yet you inferred something quite insulting that he did not say or mean.
>The fact that @mxcl tweeted with indignance about his interview experience is what implied he expected to get the job without an interview.
That's 100% your spin. To me, it implied that he was pissed at being asked irrelevant questions. A quick google can actually confirm that (there's a quora thread about him).
That's pretty much what this whole thread is about. The OP's rant was basically "recruiter, your test is bad, here's a more realistic one you should try". My rant was about irrelevant questions and unrealistic questions.
>he shouldn't have to invert a binary tree because 90% of Google uses his software.
...and neither should most people who interview at Google because asking that question is irrelevant for ~90% at software engineers even at google (never mind elsewhere).
Frankly, even if you are an engineer that does use binary trees it's a bad question to ask.
>I don't really understand why you just got so snarky
Honestly? Because, in a situation where you didn't really have enough information to form a judgment you instinctively sided with the large, powerful, faceless corporation and showed distrust of the little guy who made a great piece of software for free that people love.
I think that's a pretty unhealthy kind of bias to exhibit.
>I'm honestly sorry if something I said ticked you off.
Yeah, sorry I probably shouldn't have snarked.
