[trentnix]

Absolutely. In the case I mentioned, interviewers did more talking than asking and listening, interviews were far too easy (I’m glad you like me but if you can’t really discern whether I’m good at my job, you’ve probably hired other people who are bad at theirs), and bad answers to questions about their business model (when stock options were part of the compensation package).

It just didn’t feel like a fit.

[akhmatova]

interviews were far too easy (I’m glad you like me but if you can’t really discern whether I’m good at my job, you’ve probably hired other people who are bad at theirs),

Maybe they have ways of evaluating your potential without subjecting you to an endless barrage of gratuitously difficult (or simply tedious) questioning.

[trentnix]

Maybe, and it’s flattering to think that. But I have to make my decisions based on the data I have.

[yonaguska]

I give "easy" interviews to people that have shown signs that I can trust their technical work. I far more interested in their communication and organizational skills once we get past the technical aspect of it. As well as their higher level "engineering" experience. What I mean by this is- when we're planning a complex feature, I want someone that has the experience and communication skills to stand up to the team and not be a yes man, point out potential issues and concerns and propose better ideas. Leetcode is not an indicator of this. The interview may feel easy to the person being interviewed, in the sense that there isn't wrong answers, rather, there could be an absence of correct answers.

[trentnix]

I can appreciate all of that. Maybe that’s the case I encountered and I wasn’t savvy enough to discern. But it’s also possible the interview simply wasn’t a good competence filter. And that possibility gave me pause.