Do you also ask that they pay you for the time spent on site during an interview? It's possible that these projects are replacing on site time.

FWIW we have a coding project but it's part (a large part) of the on site and really just replaces the whiteboarding and such. Candidates are not asked to code on the fly in ither sessions

No, but lunch at a good nearby restaurant paid for by the interviewer is a considerate offering. If the level of interest is high enough that man-day or more project submittal is asked of the candidate, at least put some skin in the game along with candidate in terms of time. Time is money. "The only thing I have in this life is time, and you are wasting it." -Andy Grove

I'd argue that having several people on the company's side - both in person and prep work is skin in the game. I've fought a fairly arduous battle in my company where we spend a lot of time reviewing code samples, resumes, pre-interview discussions and then the actual interviews. All told it's far more person-hours than the candidate is spending. That said, that's exactly how I think the dynamic should be

I don't think the fact that you have a lot of people spending time on an interview is any sort of "payment" for the interviewee. That's an investment in the company. The interviewee gets nothing out of it (unless they are the one person that is hired).

For what it's worth, I'm not talking about the 2-4 hours an interviewee spends on-site. I'm talking about the additional 4-8 hours some companies expect interviewees to spend doing coding projects or time spent on-site above and beyond 2-4 hours.

What I mean is that there's an investment of time (and time is money) by both sides. IMO the company should spend more time/money than the candidate, at least in boom times like this, but as long as it's fairly equitable neither side can really complain too much. You say that putting in time is an investment for the company but not the candidate unless they're selected - but if the company invests 100 person-hours of work into a candidate only to see it not work out, how is that any different than what a candidate goes through?

So for instance, my coworkers that complained when I said they should be spending several hours reviewing code samples before an interview are being just as silly in my mind as people who get bent out of shape over 5-6 hours of leg work. At the end of the day it behooves both parties to spend a fair amount of time and energy here, in theory this could be a relationship which last many years - isn't it worth it for everyone involved to put in the effort to make sure it's a good fit?

And really, at the end of the day it's entirely possible that the way a particular company or candidate conducts things reflects right away that it's not a great fit (e.g. a candidate loathes the coding challenges, or a company balks at a candidate requesting money). There's nothing wrong with that, a fast fail isn't a bad thing.

This is not equitable. A company generally has cash. You (jghn) spend so much time on the reviews, but at the end of the day, you collect your paycheck and go home. Sucks for the company’s investors, but you’ll be fine.

A job candidate loses both time and money. I complete your challenge, I don’t get paid, I get thrown into the street and starve. I would have made more profit washing dishes at a restaurant.

Besides, word on the street is that nobody can expect to have “a relationship which lasts many years” with any company, so drop your pretense at perfection. That is a contributor to the tech industry’s problems with lack of diversity and actually filling positions with people who can do the job.

"I complete your challenge, I don’t get paid, I get thrown into the street and starve"

This assumes you're not currently employed

"nobody can expect to have “a relationship which lasts many years” with any company"

If I'm taking a job I'd like it to be a place that I could see myself staying for a number of years. It might not work out that way, but it's my goal.