I hate the way we evaluate interviews here
Doing coding interview training here. Shadowing, I saw a candidate smash the coding while being completely silent and not explaining anything. Was told that was great performance (he surely already saw them). Was dinged in a reverse shadow for giving hints to a stuck but good communicating and logical candidate. Being a good interviewer apparently means sitting silently and giving a thumbs up if they pass the dumb little question. Also, I hate the emphasis on dinging candidates for little bugs and off by 1 errors. Getting the algorithm is by far the biggest hurdle; off by 1 errors during a speed coding exercise will not translate to someone’s 8 hour workday. I was told a candidate who smoked the 2 questions would’ve been rejected because of small bugs.
comments
A) they get flagged as banned the moment they’re found online somewhere
B) interviewers are free to invent their own questions and not pull from the go/interviewquestions list. I always used my own after my favorite question got banned.
2 interviewers super chilled guy and the first thing they told me is that they are not going to run the code.
They had the whole hackerrank test cases setup already to run it but they told they just want to see my approach and coding and dry run it.
That's how interviews should be I feel.
If as an interviewer you can't find the issue in code you have no right to judge for the silly corner cases.
Like having bugs in your initial answer shouldn't be a ding, but not walking through your code/not finding the bugs after you write the initial answer is a ding (I do not conduct interviews, that's just how I thought about it)