My understanding is that googlers typically don't know/care what role the candidate is applying for (outside of maybe the hiring manager round). There are arguments both for and against their methodology.
Personally I think there's a strong correlation between necessity and hiring quality (i.e. if teams really need the help, they typically engage candidates more meaningfully than the Google-style clinically impartial methodology)
That makes sense.
Sounds a bit like what my old timer buddy says.
Google's KPI is hiring talent away from competitors who physically live in the San Francisco bay area. And the ads/ML teams that they drench in their 1%ers.
Everyone else is window dressing.
Is it 25% will do it properly, 75% don't? Am I too cynical about tech interviews, or too optimistic?
I'd also add, for a couple of companies, Google's approach springs to mind.
I think for places where, you know, they do search algorithms, knowing how to print the spanning tree of a graph is probably an important thing to know.