[hunglee2]

"traps" comment is attracting a lot of flak in comments here - easy to understand why, it gives the sense of being set up for failure.

I'd love to see OP expand on this point as I feel the wording distracts from the main point, which is a subtle test of someone's attention to detail and / or facility with written communication, both of which are important for remote work, where 'over-the-desk' clarifications are not available

[malvosenior]

This will happen naturally during the negotation and interview process and it will look a lot more like "real work" than any trap, trick or quiz. Are they effectively writing emails as you have your back and forth? Do they ask good clarifying questions? What do they do with their contract once it's sent to them?

Actually getting someone in the door requires a lot of work on both sides of the table. It's a perfect and natural way to vet what it's like to work with someone.

[hunglee2]

You're right. Nothing beats actually working with someone to learn whether you want to work with someone. However there are inefficiencies in doing this, which is why assessments (which are all proxies for the work) are used.

I don't think it's unreasonable to use subtle testing like this. We likely do it anyway (i.e we make judgement calls when reviewing someone's online profile, portfolio etc) - all equally sub-optimal but we use it because we need a short cut

[gwbas1c]

Agree, I'd like to see more about traps.

I've seen some, in job descriptions, that basically say, "When applying, make sure to tell us why you love [some topic related to the job]".

When trying to hire, it's always a torrent of unqualified candidates and hunting for qualified candidates. No filter is 100% perfect; but broad filters against someone who didn't take 10 minutes to read the job description carefully is useful.

[JAlexoid]

You don't need a trap for that. All you have to do is request some particular piece of information as part of the initial application. Setting a pointless trap(ex change the name on your resume) is a stupid move.

[moltar]

Not OP, but to be honest, I think they just used too heavy of a word.

I’m using this technique too, especially on freelancing sites.

I’ll say something like:

Make sure to include the word “horse” in your application.

This isn’t a trick question.

But the main reason I do this is to avoid bots and bot-like behaviour. Where applicants just copy paste the same mumbo-jumbo into every project, regardless of a fit.

This happens with job applications a lot too. I’d estimate that about 80% of resumes received feel like spam. They are so unqualified it just makes no sense to apply.

E.g. an ad for a NodeJs dev with web experience receives a resume with 10 years of C experience in embedded systems. Also no mention of wanting to change industry or anything like that. Just a resume without prelude.

The second, minor, reason I do this is I check for attention to detail and ability to follow instructions.

[craftinator]

I was annoyed by the "traps" item as well, especially given some of the other shite advice in the article... However, after some thought, I can see some rationals behind this (even if the author didn't see the same way).

1) Makes it really easy to filter out a large portion of bot applications.

2) Filter out applicants who application spamming, similar to the above bothavior.

3) Filter out applicants who don't read posts or instructions thoroughly. For some types of work this would be a daft filter, but I do actually want my devs to be hungry for minutiae, especially with life-altering decision making.

[QuercusMax]

At a previous job, we specifically told coder candidates NOT to come wearing a suit. We didn't specifically discount those who came wearing suits, but it was often correlated with not following directions well.

[watwut]

You might have actively alienated people who realized the requirement is bullshit and had a choice to get emplyment in company that does not broadcast red flags.