Just roll the dice. I refuse to believe that the average recruiting process is better than a fair dice.

The outcome seems to be a dice roll anyways. All these ceremonies just introduce bias.

Put up some requirements, get applications, roll the dice. Qualified, real person with valid credentials? If not, reroll. Can talk to you inperson for 30 minutes without seeming to want to cut your throat? Give offer.

For what its worth, modern recruiting pipelines should be able to automate a good chunk of resume filtering for you if that's what your org values. Being able to only grab applicants that have `Go` listed in their resume, for example, or those who claim to have a degree. That should make a dent in the manual effort. Nevermind that you would still need to review whatever output the "test" is giving you.

I agree with part of what the OP said:

> My take on interviews is that the company must eventually spend as much time as the hired developer in the process

In my opinion, making applicants take a test is creating asymmetrical busy work just so the job-poster can feel that they've selected the "best" candidates (whatever that means). If you legitimately have enough great applicants that you cannot possibly hope to interview them all, then just roll a dice!

> If you legitimately have enough great applicants that you cannot possibly hope to interview them all, then just roll a dice!

How do you know they're all great? You know you have 700 of them. What do you do next? Pick one at random, because you don't want to hire unluckly people?