[JCDenton2052]

Such tests are not very informative when they are disconnected from the type of companies/industries one is looking for. This is a criticism I have of the Joel test, too, since at the time he wrote it it seemed to me a good way to evaluate prospective software houses. After all, he worked in one. Yet I dare say most of us will probably spend at least part of our careers working in in-house IT departments. Different rules.

It is not unlikely to find companies that fulfill all requirements, although they will likely know how attractive their working environments are and will filter candidates accordingly. An interview I had with such a small-sized software house two months ago confirmed this. I gave them the Joel test, which they had never heard of before, and they scored perfect. Dedicated testers, usability testing, quiet working environments (like a library, the team lead said; no need for headphones). Predictably, they were extremely picky as to who they let in.

The ones much less likely to get good test scores? 1) Government IT, by and large 2) IT for any non-tech company less than a certain size. 3) Non-tech corporations (and even some tech ones). One notable one I was aware of used excel for bug tracking, was full of red tape and their main technical test was a 20 question multiple choice.

[s73ver]

I'm not quite so sure what your point is. The examples you gave of places that don't do so well on the Joel test still sound like places most of us would not want to work.