Also, you need to consider the possibility that the author doesn't show any signs of self-reflection because he/she is so frustrated. I've spent 3 months looking for a job all the while seeing people complaining about how hard it is to find developers, and it is incredibly frustrating.
This and some people just suck at the interview process. Ive been praised in the past for the quality of teams I've built. I think I'm good at hiring. That being said a few times when ive been an interviewer (not the hiring manager) I've tried to talk people out of hiring people who ended up being rockstars. I've also had other managers try to talk me out of hiring some folks I've been sold on who ended up being rockstars themselves.
Point being that hiring is a very inexact science. Sometimes when the bar is set high qualified people slip through the cracks. It's a hiring "cost". Sometimes you just do the best you can with an inexact science.
Really? Do you pay bills with your code?
"To put it bluntly" "you're less competent than you think you are"
To put it bluntly you sound like a pretentious arse.
I am not talking about the 20% interviews where it didn't workout, but the other 80% where there was no reply, I am sure many of those job ads won't classify as "Mature" in your view. Some of the best programmers i know can't write even proper English sentences, since its not their first language. Do you think they are any less able to do the job? And does it disqualify from expecting even a reply to their application?
I think your tome is somewhat off base.
Although the original post does come off as ad hominem.
Actually, it's always "Dunning-Kruger" with a link to the wikipedia article to make it more authoritative.
In the "Full Version", if I was a hiring authority, which I am not (although I have been in past lives), there isn't enough there to warrant a second look. Did you have a cover letter? How many pages were in your resume? What projects have you done?
In what you have shared here, we see only keywords and some snark. Keywords don't cut it with real hiring managers.
This may be a common attitude, but I hope you're aware that it is quite inconsiderate to the person in the long run. Yes, it is painful to tell people they suck. It may be terrible to do it during the phone interviewing process. But have you at least considered following up with a brief email telling the person that the interview actually didn't go that well?
Yes, this is a potential minefield. But if you never give people this type of feedback, how are they going to improve?
It's, as you claim, painful, and the net gain for the company is close to zero. Why do it?
"API's"
"potentially/maybe/sorta/kinda/probably/possibly"
"Machine learning ...." <-- too many dots, space after "learning"
You need to consider the possibility that you're not as competent as you believe yourself to be. Dunning-Kruger[0] is real, and your post doesn't demonstrate the self-awareness the best developers seem to possess.
Your writing is sprinkled with emoticons and rife with reduplicated punctuation, both of which (especially the exclamation points) are common signs of immaturity. Reading this diatribe--and assuming your 50 emails were written similarly--I am forced to accept one of two conclusions: either you're not aware that your writing is unprofessional, or you're aware that it's unprofessional and unconcerned. Either option does not reflect well on you. To put it bluntly, if I received an email from you in this style, I would archive it without response, assuming it was from someone who lacked the requisite introspective capability I expect from the people I want to work with.
I found it particularly telling that you claim that all five of your phone screens went "very well" but marveled that only three companies tried to set up an onsite interview with you. Unless both the two companies that stopped at the phone screen simultaneously filled the position immediately after your phone screen, you really need to recognize that at least those two phone screens did not go well. I do interviews at a large Internet company, and one of my goals--one of the goals that I've been trained to seek--is to ensure that the candidate, no matter how bad, walks away from the interview feeling good about himself/herself and the company. If you're doing really poorly in an interview, I'll toss you some easier questions than I normally give, because I have all the information I need, and I don't want you to have a negative experience with my company. You may have felt good about the phone screens, but the most likely explanation for the two companies that didn't bring you onsite is that you didn't actually do well enough to justify additional interviews. These people want to hire someone, and if you were someone they wanted to hire, they certainly would have continued to interview you.
I think your experiment was less valid than you think it was because you're less competent than you think you are.
EDIT: I should add that whatever the case, whether I'm right or wrong about you, the best response to the situation you're in is to seek to improve yourself, not to embark on a quixotic venture to change others. Read CS theory books, create and modify open source projects, solve fun programming puzzles: sharpen your skills and--no matter what your level of competency--your prospects will improve.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect