I flat out refuse to be interviewed using it and if the company doesn’t drop the requirement, I drop them.

Same here, know lots of developers in the same boat.

HackerRank - the #1 way to find developers with zero self respect

also the #1 way to weed out self important idiots.

bad hacker rank tests are bad, but not all hacker rank tests are bad.

You don't have to insult people to get your argument across.

Could just say, for example, you don't think it's a disrespect to oneself to attend Hacker Rank tests and explain why.

it's fairly simple, at some point you have to evaluate somone technical skills to make sure they are suitble for the job, and well designed tests do that.

There is an abundance of bad tests out there, but blanket statements that you won't use a tool that is used for assessing candiates is just as rediculas as saying you won't give apply to jobs that ask for your cv to apply.

Well no, if a company is happy to pay six figures but lacks the desire to spend an hour or two pair programming or even just creating a tech test, their priorities are all wrong and I don’t want to work for them. Hiring is about people and not robots, so using automated tests like Hacker Rank that almost always have zero bearing on how a problem would be solved in a real environment is a testament to a lazy hiring process and an extremely poor reflection on the company. Don’t try to automate something that should intrinsically involve human interaction.

Comparing it to a CV is a false equivalence because it takes me O(1) effort to make and CV and O(n) to do some stupid timed algorithm test for every company that is interested in the value of my labour.

I understand why you're getting downvoted but I have to say that I agree with the gist of what you're saying. We use HackerRank mostly just to package a problem set and put a timer in place for upload, nothing more clever than that, so if someone pattern matched "HackerRank test" to "disrespectful" I would think of that as a severe red flag and move on to another candidate.

There are many "in good faith" steps that both parties must do in the interview process, wherein if either party drops the ball it really makes sense for both parties to cut their losses and move on; which I believe is what you are getting at.

> it's fairly simple, at some point you have to evaluate somone technical skills to make sure they are suitble for the job, and well designed tests do that.

There is employment contract for a trial period, because you only know how good coder is when they face real problems/code. Writing sort algorithms on white board might look cool, but in real world you will search internet for best algorithms for your case, look up generic one, so you will not make a trivial error writing it from memory, or just use equivalent of std::sort.

These kinds of tests can be easily cheated and they are a poor predictor of the quality of an engineer work in the real world.

I'd rather not work with people selected this way. There are plenty of companies using much better filtering processes.

You can call me whatever you'd like, but I'm a service provider and I have no obligation to offer my service to anyone.

StackOverflow contributions are (thankfully!) licensed under the very permissive CC-BY-SA license. I suspect the sites ripping them off are not infringing copyright.