[krackers]

>The current show had a woman eating in a restaurant with some men... At the time it was mildly amusing, but in retrospect, it was quite inappropriate.

Probably was Shokugeki no Soma

The first few rounds don't really seem too dissimilar from other firms (in that they'd ask a bunch of random algorithmic problems that you will never likely come across in your job). That being said, six consecutive rounds of interview with these sorts of problems does indeed seem a bit too much.

[Jemaclus]

It wasn't necessarily six consecutive rounds with "these sorts of problems", it was six consecutive rounds of _the same problem_ just worded differently. And the actual questions were less the terrible part as the fact that interviews work both ways. An interview is a chance for _me_ to learn about _you_ just as much as it is for _you_ to learn about _me_. A very good software engineer in a city with very high demand for software engineers has a lot of possibilities. CrunchyRoll is not the only person asking engineers to spend their entire day in the office. You can't treat an interview as an obstacle course that the candidate has to overcome.

Crunchyroll showed zero interest in learning anything about me other than whether or not I can search a tree. They showed zero interest in letting me learn anything about the company other than I don't want to work there. They showed zero ability to collaborate and coordinate prior to the interview. They showed no interest in me personally as a potential team member. They showed zero ability to recognize that I gave up an entire day (and likely lied to my boss about why I was missing work that day) to come into their office and... waste my time? Yeah, not great.

Conversely, I've been involved with dozens of interviews at other companies that ask algorithmic questions that were pleasant, interesting, and an actual two-way street. There were plenty of companies whose interviewers seemed to actually know my name, and who spent time trying to convince me that I _should_ work there.

IMO, if you bring candidates on-site and you're only asking them algorithmic questions, your recruitment funnel has failed. You shouldn't bring anyone into your office unless you're pretty sure you're going to hire them. That means determining whether or not they're competent _before_ they come in. The on-site should be a validation of what you already know (e.g., verify they actually did the coding challenge you sent them and that they're the same person from the phone call(s)), a confirmation that their temperament and personality are compatible, and then selling them on joining the company.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with algorithmic questions, but more than one or two is a waste of time.

And yes, this pattern is sadly common in SF, but common does not make it okay.

[cspa]

It sounds like this happened after I left Crunchyroll in 2015. The process I had in place was definitely not like that :/

Well FWIW, I personally wrote the coding exercise that you enjoyed (http://www.crunchyroll.com/tech-challenge/roaming-math/yourn...). I thought it was a good mix of basic algorithms (tree traversal) as well as some practical knowledge (CURL/http). I'm surprised they are still using the same one :)

[Jemaclus]

My interview was in June 2015. Maybe you had left by then. It did seem disorganized.

I did really enjoy that coding challenge, though. Good job with it. It is the one thing I did like about the whole experience, and I still share it with people when they ask about what a good coding challenge might be. Tree traversal isn't particularly useful in web dev world, but it's a pretty intuitive task, so I think it's gives good insight into whether a programmer can reason logically about a task.

I'd rather see real-world challenges, though. Sometimes that's hard, though, depending on the company.