A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

Re:A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires by JauntyHatAngle on Thursday November 10, 2016 @12:38AM (#12918024)

>This works, but make sure they spend the 2 hours in your office and not 12 hours at home solving a 2 hour problem..

Did you read the article?

That's what the article author is saying not to do, they prefer to see a well worked solution after you define a particular technology, showing they are adaptable and have thought it through properly.

Limiting them to your office, timeboxed, advantages people who spit out lines of code quickly, which is definitely not the right fit for a huge amount of coding positions, especially when you are emphasising logical choices and design decisions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires by blowski on Thursday November 10, 2016 @03:14AM (#12918622)

Please don't suggest someone hasn't read the article. It sounds hostile and doesn't really add anything to your comment.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires by MustardTiger on Thursday November 10, 2016 @06:07PM (#12925455)

It does add to the comment. It hopefully encourages people to actually read the article. People can not contribute to a discussion constructively if they do not read the subject of the discussion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires by blowski on Friday November 11, 2016 @02:22AM (#12928685)

From the HN Guidelines:

> Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires by MustardTiger on Saturday November 12, 2016 @11:00AM (#12938468)

I know it is in the guidelines. I am saying that I disagree with that guideline as it does not accomplish the goal the guidelines are intended to accomplish.

[ Parent | on HN ]