> If they expected you to spent 1.5-2 hours on it - a reasonable amount of time IMO - but when got it back you clearly spent an entire day working on it, that's enough to fail because you didn't follow the directions.
Yeah, let's fail someone who cares about showing their best self for an interview and takes pride in the craftsmanship of their code because we asked them to spend no time on it and probably get something that doesn't even work.
Not to mention there are probably other candidates that are taking just as long but not mentioning how long it takes them when turning it in, so the employer might start having an unreasonable expectation of the quality of work that can be done in 1.5-2 hours based on other applicants, and if you actually do follow instructions and only put that time in, you're likely going to be compared unfavorably against those other applicants.
Only way to properly enforce that limited time is to bring someone in to take a test in person, which is what my last company did (I barely passed and watched hundreds of people get brought in and not pass in the years since...in fact I saw only a handful of people pass that stupid test, part of the reason we never hired anyone, even though we needed to).
Part of evaluating candidates includes, on some level, how quickly they complete work. If I can submit work of quality Q in 2 hours, and you can submit work of quality 1.5Q in 2 hours, you're at a distinct disadvantage if I instead spend an entire day and submit something of 2Q, whether it's couched in "taking pride in craftsmanship" or whatever else. Also, perhaps a bit more reductively, if you're told to spend up to 2 hours on something and you spend 6, that says something about your ability or desire to follow directions.
Your last point isn't true at all, it doesn't need to be in person it just needs to be coordinated. I mention one real-life example of this that worked out very well at the end of the comment you're replying to.
Yeah, let's fail someone who cares about showing their best self for an interview and takes pride in the craftsmanship of their code because we asked them to spend no time on it and probably get something that doesn't even work.
Not to mention there are probably other candidates that are taking just as long but not mentioning how long it takes them when turning it in, so the employer might start having an unreasonable expectation of the quality of work that can be done in 1.5-2 hours based on other applicants, and if you actually do follow instructions and only put that time in, you're likely going to be compared unfavorably against those other applicants.
Only way to properly enforce that limited time is to bring someone in to take a test in person, which is what my last company did (I barely passed and watched hundreds of people get brought in and not pass in the years since...in fact I saw only a handful of people pass that stupid test, part of the reason we never hired anyone, even though we needed to).