[35fbe7d3d5b9]

Absolutely not. It's one more approach riddled with bias, human foibles and questionable correlation to results - just like all hiring.

All I can say: in my experience, the engineers I've hired with deep (but potentially old) experience and with balanced resumes have been better performers and more likely to stick around than those who bounce around tech to tech.

[Frazmatazz]

I mean, I'm in the same boat as you. I just hate that I have to rely on this type of information, subject to all the flaws and biases of relying on personal experience.

In my experience, it's useful to have a couple 'jack-of-all-trades' types on the team, but you wouldn't want all your engineers to be broad but shallow. I did a stint in the military to pay for college, and something we'd point out was that it was better to have something 'good enough' right now than something perfect a thousand miles away. Breadth of experience is also handy when trying to innovate a novel solution.

But I don't have any better evidence than you. I've never worked anywhere large enough to have that sort of data where we could demonstrate quantitatively that one method works better than another, and of course the metrics are all fairly arbitrary themselves.