> There are two independent skills: abstracting a problem, and solving an abstract problem. I test for both but the linked list question only addresses the latter.

The problem (heh) with this is that, unless one is actively doing research on improving an existing technology or method, all abstract problems that might come up are already solved.

Every solution is one search in google away (including your git example) so there's no point to it. Paraphrasing someone else: if the time spent in coding a problem is expressed as mx + c, m is the time spent in figuring out what the problem is and c is integrating a solution. That c tends to be insignificantly small.

Frankly, as someone holding a degree, if you were to interview me and asked me to reverse a linked list, I'd do it, laugh in your face, and walk out.

On that point, interestingly, in your earlier examples of people you got feedback from, you didn't mention the most significant one, the one more likely to point out the problems in your process and that would give you actually actionable feedback: the people who rejected the job offer.

> the people who rejected the job offer.

Didn't happen many times, I did ask for feedback, but rarely got any; mostly along "your interview was fair, but I prefer a different offer I received". Which is what I would expect - unlike what some people in this thread expect, the candidate is maximizing their revenue and future benefits; saying anything nontrivial after rejecting the offer is not helping towards either, and potentially harmful.

> Frankly, as someone holding a degree, if you were to interview me and asked me to reverse a linked list, I'd do it, laugh in your face, and walk out.

That's good, actually. Means we have a culture mismatch, identified early. Win win.

> unlike what some people in this thread expect, the candidate is maximizing their revenue and future benefits; saying anything nontrivial after rejecting the offer is not helping towards either, and potentially harmful.

I had already noticed a very strong reality distortion field in your other comments[0] but this one is just weird. I have been a candidate, most people in this thread have, exactly why their saying what they'd do is not a reflection of what a candidate might do? For instance, I cannot conceive why saying "anything nontrivial" matters in regards to revenue and future benefits. I've done it before (probably not "laughing in their face" but, then again, I have yet to meet an interviewer with such a clear misplaced arrogance) and so far, rejecting a company and giving feedback has not hurt me in any way; they have no impact on my future because I rejected them.

For that matter, how did this even address what I said? I see not how it isn't a non-sequitur, other than you believing that you have a strong enough pull in the industry that you could badmouth me into not getting a job if I rejected your offer and told you it was because your interview was terrible. Of course, that is not the case.

> That's good, actually. Means we have a culture mismatch, identified early. Win win.

Yeah, no, that wouldn't have been deduced from that interview; one could get a culture mismatch by exposing the applicant to the actual company during the process. What I said would only bring to light that your interview process is terrible and doesn't actually account for people who aren't desperate for getting the job (which, in itself, explains why you think everyone you hire is a sycophant, they probably have to).

Of course, I understand your inability to see that it might be a problem with you specifically; no, it must be that the interviewee has a problem with "the culture" of the company.

[0]: For instance, there was no majority saying that the creator of homebrew "was in the wrong" regarding his tweet. At most, there was an even split, although there was far more complaining about interview processes like yours.

> other than you believing that you have a strong enough pull in the industry that you could badmouth me into not getting a job if I rejected your offer and told you it was because your interview was terrible. Of course, that is not the case.

It is obvious our different experiences give us different views of the world. I would just add that I have seen this happen, mostly in business settings. A lot of people take things personally.

I don't particularly take things personally myself; it's all business or math to me. But when I was younger, I used to give brutally honest feedback about everything, and there were a couple of investment opportunities that it cost me (and I cannot say that it created others). I learned to play the politics game as I matured. I hate the game, yes, but I needed to start playing to break a glass ceiling.

> Yeah, no, that wouldn't have been deduced from that interview;

No, it would have surfaced immediately. I try to hire people whose attitude is more of the "yes, I can do anything that's needed. But why?" rather than "I laugh in your general direction since I think you are wrong".

> with you specifically;

Me and google. And facebook. And hundreds of other companies. You are entitled to your opinion that e.g. Google's culture is the problem.

Which is not to say my company is as successful as google. Just that I share the idea that culture fit is important. I recommend reading "Peopleware" if you haven't yet -- they have some empirical anecdata for that.

Also, I'm amused at how my "I prefer to ignore noisy data" comment (which is all my comment said, explained several times) was taken to mean "I think everyone's a sycophant or crybaby". I think it reflects on the readers' ability to consider that I'm calibrating my stats differently than they expect, or rather lack of it. And I calibrate it that way based on decades of interviewing -- I didn't start that way.