[shadow-banned]

Experienced this at a local tech company that will remain nameless. They're in the logistics space. They enable fast shipping for merchants.

Did 10+ hours of a challenge project - something I would have charged $5,000+ for, including a channel-specific attribution model (with defense of my choice), a complete onboarding campaign flow with timing, and sample email creative, lead scoring model, and a bunch of pedantic questions about my background and history. 15+ pages, presentations, etc.

Did three virtual conference calls. Met the head of engineering and CEO. Went over; great, energetic conversations.

Received a call from the recruiter, poor thing, and she could barely get the words out to me.

Them: "I'm so sorry... uh, but... but it was a no."

Me: "I completely understand! Not everything is a fit. Do you have any actionable feedback for me?"

Them: "Uh, they... I mean, we... just... are looking for, more? I think."

Me: "Um, okay. Thanks for the opportunity."

They still have not filled their head of marketing role. Two months later.

(I suspect their young founder didn't like me - not a problem, but not something you can tell a candidate.)

This article resonates.

[rs23296008n1]

10 hours?! That's a test of whether you'll work unpaid overtime and what kind of nonsense you'll tolerate. They have too many candidates and will probably treat you like garbage even if you could get the role. Which you likely won't.

I'd be well out the door before 2 hours. I've been in an office waiting for an interview and walked out after waiting 20 minutes. They rang me and angrily asked where I'd gone. I said I was on time and they had missed the interview start without a valid explanation. I questioned their punctuality and asked whether they were even serious about the position.

They were out of business around a year later. I guess they were too late for other people as well.

Interviews are two way. A lot of recruiters forget that.

Always be ready to walk away.

[davidw]

> Did 10+ hours of a challenge project

Those things are a hard "no" for me.

10 hours of interviews... I might not like it, but at least it's symmetric. People at the company are putting their time in to the process as much as I am.

But with a job, kids, hobbies, volunteer work and so on, I just pass on companies that have day+ long 'coding challenges'.

[ghaff]

For the most part I agree. Let me offer one counterexample though.

I've never been primarily a developer but I have worked in areas where one of my primary outputs is writing. When I've hired for a similar role, if someone doesn't (for whatever reason) have writing sample(s), they're not going to get hired unless they produce one. It doesn't have to be an assignment; choose a relevant topic. But I'm not going to trust you that you've done tons of great writing if I can't see it.

And that may take a day or two.

[cookie_monsta]

I'm curious about what the situation would be where a person had done tons of great writing but could not come up with one sample. Confidentiality?

[ghaff]

I agree it would be a bit odd--and something of a red flag TBH.

>confidentially

But yes. One can imagine someone writing non-public reports and analyses for internal or client use only and just doesn't really do that kind of thing in their spare time. Myself, I have tons of public material but I've also written many things I couldn't share.

[rconti]

I like your "asymmetric" description. That's a good explanation.

I did one, once. I liked it initially; if my skill set isn't quite up to par, I can spend 10 hours on something they expect to only take me 5, and so I have a better opportunity to impress if I'm really interested.

On the other hand, I tend to get along very well with people, so I "interview well", and I like the on-site thing because it's time-boxed. I either get the job, or I fail, but at least it's over, and doesn't drag on indefinitely.

[toolslive]

Don't say no. ask for compensation; after all, you're providing a consultancy service here.

[hinkley]

Fragile egos foster ageism.

I didn't work anywhere near this hard, but the outcome reminds me of the One that Got Away last cycle.

Literally up the street from me, a company doing mapping software was looking for a lead. They had a lot of junior to mid-level people and they were having some code quality concerns. But they were looking for someone who could lead, mentor, and was already a GIS expert (which I am not). There are a lot of reasons that should not be too much of a problem for me but they weren't buying my pitch.

Now, I was far from the first person to reply to their initial ad. I took a chance that the position was still open. A month later the position is reposted, so they clearly found nobody after at least 6 weeks of looking. I contact them, again with another pitch, get a curt reply. Then again a month later (no reply at all this time). By that point I accept a position somewhere else and I can't recall but I may have seen it pop up a third time. (I may have to go through my sent folder to try to figure out if they're still around.)

In retrospect, this is just the sort of job description that sucks me in but then leaves me feeling like I haven't achieved my goals. I should count myself lucky they said no.

[shadow-banned]

Bingo. You dodged a bullet bud.

[SkyPuncher]

I had a similar thing happen with a well-known messaging app startup I interviewed with.

This company had me do an initial technical screen (2-hours of work) and expressed great interest in the work I did. They asked me to complete a follow on "work sample" which I promptly completed with extras (error handling, specs, etc).

After completing the work sample (a non-trivial amount of effort), they suddenly decided they weren't interested in me. I hadn't even talked with a person and they went from being "extremely excited" to "uninterested" after getting me deep into their process.

Apparently, the recruiter was pushing me through the steps and the technical team hadn't even looked at my resume - or even considered it worthwhile to schedule a call with me.

[noblethrasher]

That’s disgusting, and I’m really sorry to have read that happened to you or anyone else.

My policy is that anyone that completes the technical screen (2 – 4 hours of work) gets an on-site interview.

Just this morning, I had to spend about 20 minutes debugging a candidate’s code to get it to both build and run, but he’s still getting invited for an on-site.

[SkyPuncher]

I don't care about being turned away (I did a very similar project for another company, that I now happily work for).

However, it's infuriating to have spent so much time just to learn that the engineering team didn't want me anyways. If I got rejected for a bad work sample - that's fine. Getting rejected because the hiring manager couldn't be bothered to look at your resume before assigning tasks - not cool.

-----

Good on you for bringing candidates in. Technical screens are tough and can be mis-understood by candidates. They should only be a tool to support other data points.

[underwater]

Are you really likely to hire this candidate? Asking him to commit even more time when he's started off so poorly seems like an (unknown to him) poor use of his time.

[dehrmann]

I also had something happen with a well-known messaging app. They gave me a take-home assignment that turned out to be pretty non-trivial (16+ hours). They liked it, even had good things to say about it, I had an hour mostly non-technical meeting with a manager(?) there that seemed to go reasonably well, and nope, they weren't interested.

I told people to avoid this place because of how bad of an experience it was.

[SkyPuncher]

Does said messaging app also not show up on Glassdoor? Making it hard for candidates to identify this problematic process.

[davidajackson]

Whenever I see stuff like this I think... "That company must be running out of money... Trying to scam engineers into working for free."

[shadow-banned]

Aside: marketers, engineers, whomever. Don't do free projects for companies. It's never worth it.

I monitor their site to make sure they never use the work I presented. Waiting to pull the trigger on a lawsuit!

[timw4mail]

I did a programming test for where I currently work. The biggest difference is that it would not have worked for many realistic use cases, and the code was fairly trivial.

If you have to implement an entire application or system, that should be an automatic red flag.

[shadow-banned]

That's the differentiator; I have no problem with that.

[SkyPuncher]

> Don't do free projects for companies. It's never worth it.

In my experience, I'd never get hired if I took this approach.

Work samples are quickly becoming the interview standard for engineering. In fact, I find they're often completely replacing all day onsite interviews.

I'd much rather do 8 hours of self-directed, self-paced work than get grilled on a whiteboard during an on-site.

[ativzzz]

The company I work at pays a lowish rate for our 10 hour take home project, which is also the last step of the interview process. I think this is a great practice, as this shows that we're taking this seriously and are willing to compensate for your time.

[sk5t]

Does your company then issue 1099 forms (assuming US taxation)?

[boring_twenties]

They might not have to if it's a "lowish" (quoting GP) enough rate. I believe the threshold is $500-600 per annum, so if they're paying you $50 per hour for the interview, no 1099 needed.

[SkyPuncher]

$600 is the cutoff for requiring a tax form to be issued.

[benjohnson]

Perhaps be careful - we did this until someone filed for unemployment benefits. They used the fact that we paid them as evidence of employment to the state.

[shadow-banned]

Let me be clear: I'm okay with NON-business specific challenges. AKA, from a marketing perspective:

How would you position a new SaaS service that allows you to track your children's school performance? (but the hiring company is in SaaS business tools)

Vs. doing work that is directly actionable and can be taken by the business, "How would you update our homepage?"

That's the line now. Not opposed to challenges.