But, if you aren't hiring a developer specifically to implement fizzbuzz for you, why are you giving them that as a problem to solve?
Hiring someone to work on a Flask REST API? Make them add a REST endpoint to a little flask app. Hiring someone to do CSS? Make them style a form. Hiring someone to build a database? Make them safely write to disk.
This is far from random - it's been almost twenty years since Schmidt and Hunter showed that a work sample is one of the best predictors of future performance, 24%, vs 3% for unstructured interviewing.
http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%...
I couldn't agree more. The problem with most work sample tests is the length and the format. Most are too long and they have you start with nothing. Adding a rest endpoint to a little flask app is perfect.
It's a shame nobody actually does this kind of work sample test. And thanks for that study. It'll make for some nice ammunition. :)
And I've interviewed many people who can do fizzbuzz because they studied for it (CTCI) and wind up being terrible programmers.
The end result? Technical interviews are, at best, a completely random hiring signal. You'd be better off flipping a coin. It's better to be lucky than good, so why not use luck as a selection criteria?