> Their current process must cost them a lot of talent reply

They optimize to reduce false positives. They're completely fine with false negatives. They don't have any shortage of talented engineers willing to interview there.

That last bit is why I think it's quite silly for smaller/unknown startups to be copying Google's interview process, as seems to be the trend.

>>They optimize to reduce false positives. They're completely fine with false negatives.

Getting too many false negatives is a very sure way of getting a lot of false positives.

>>They don't have any shortage of talented engineers willing to interview there.

You might be wrong there. Apart from huge money opportunities, there are little incentives for any body to waste their best years in large company political middle levels.

>>Getting too many false negatives is a very sure way of getting a lot of false positives.

Why ? IMO if you reduce the False Acceptance Rate, you will up the False Reject Rate. Good chart at https://www.tractica.com/biometrics/in-biometrics-which-erro...

> Apart from huge money opportunities

It's...amusing that you brush that off like it's nothing.

Not to mention things like job security(people have families ya know?) and that having Google on your resume is still a powerful boost for future opportunities. That might not be true someday, but for now it is.

Maybe it's part of the process. It's easier and cheaper to maintain good image to get people interested in working for Google (improving workforce supply) than to optimize the interviewing part.

It's the same with manufacturing. It's better to provide 96% reliability with warranty than to struggle with providing 99.9% reliability.

this is good analysis. Google does things that make sense for Google. unfortunately because they are prominent many companies that aren't Google copy Google's methods uncritically. it's a disaster. I can't tell you how many times I've cringed at small tech companies that run a glorified e-commerce website interviewing candidates as if their engineering staff is 1000 instead of the 8 that it actually is.

There's no such thing as a non-subjective (the word you're looking for here is "objective", I think) and fair interview. That's part of why it's so difficult. Everybody has a bad day--interviewers and interviewees. Some people can talk out a problem better than they can whiteboard, others the reverse. It is a wheelbarrow full of conflating factors and there's no magic bullet for it.

The tendency for engineering types to believe in "objective" processes for damned near anything that isn't measured with calipers is one of the bigger weaknesses in this field.

You also have to consider the cost of hiring the wrong candidate. That can often dwarf the loss from missing out on a good candidate. The other option is to hire less stringently but use trial periods which have their own problems.

I doubt they are lacking good resumes. They can afford to miss good people