2) I agree that algorithms are important, to the extent that you know the importance of "use a hash table." I don't think being able to implement quicksort on a white board is important.
They want to see your thought process as you tackle an unfamiliar problem. Do you think about the input and the end-goals explicitly? Do you consider multiple different ways of solving it, and cover pros/cons? Do you consider where issues may occur, and attempt to mitigate them? That's what they want to see.
I guess I could go dig up my old data structures and algorithms book that I haven't touched in 15 years to refresh my memory, but I don't want to work at Google badly enough to bother with that.
Presumably you were being polite and trying to develop a rapport.
That means you didn't get along because the interviewer brought their own baggage or narrow mindedness into the interview.
This is very common and shows the interview process was incompetent.
That may sound like a strong word, but if you were qualified and they didn't hire you because of what this guy said, then they are, by definition, incompetent.
Maybe arbitrary is a nicer word to use, but it's the same thing.
More importantly, conditions like "unless you were being an ass to that interviewer" make it an entirely sensible comment, in my view. I remember strongly disliking how fellow interviewers had zero empathy. They generally have more power in that situation, and therefore more responsibility for reasonable outcomes.
I also agree with the commentor that interviewers can be very arbitrary, and that is not good.
I only took issue with "That means you didn't get along because the interviewer brought their own baggage or narrow mindedness into the interview. This is very common and shows the interview process was incompetent."
Commentor doesn't know what went on in that room, and doesn't know that this is what happened in this case.
1) I went to community college, dropped out, then finished my degree at a state school 10 years later. Google didn't care.
2) I have no idea how long it took them to decide to interview me. Once they decided I got a call. People I've referred recently have received _very_ prompt responses, though years ago sometimes people would sit "in the system" for a while.
3) It is good to brush up on algorithms, like for most other SWE interviews. You do end up using this stuff regularly though - Even if say, your'e "only" doing UIs, it's how you avoid accidental n^2 algorithms in the middle of your UI code which pisses off your users. I don't get the attitude that algorithms are just academic. They matter. Besides, "use a hash table" is often the correct approach in interviews and non-academic code ;)
4) I have no idea what a Fermi model of golfballs is, but I've never asked or been asked such a thing. And "fail" is such a black and white term. Candidates are scored, and those with marginal scores the first time often get another chance later on.
5) Not my experience in general. Sometimes the interviewers lag on getting in their feedback for non-hires, which is really unfortunate, but the recruiters are pretty on top of things.
You say your post is based on actual hiring experiences, but I bet that the negative experiences get much more attention than the positive ones. People don't generally write blog posts about how wonderful their interview was.