[seekely]

Sorry, the 'history of contradictory evidence' should have read the 'candidate's history of contradictory evidence' (e.g. having a really strong portfolio and work history to contradict a poor showing on the whiteboard).

I try to interview a candidate like he is a friend I haven't caught up with in many years. I want to have as honest and interesting of a conversation as possible, hear all his opinions, and learn all about what he has done and can do. If I feel the conversation was honest, the personalities were compatible, and there is evidence of good work and reliability in the past, I will likely consider the candidate a hire.

The problem with this method can be

1) It relies on the candidate having some sort of tangible history (referrals, solid portfolio or resume, open source projects, etc...), so new grads are tougher for example.

2) Having an 'on the level' conversation with somebody who knows they are being interviewed is not always possible. Nor are all interviewers capable of extracting useful information this way.