[z3t4]

For those tests I never follow the rules, I just make something quick and dirty because I refuse to spend unpaid hours. In the interview the first question is why I didnt follow the instructions, and they think my reason is fair.

Companies seem to think that we program just for fun and ask to make a full blown app... also underestimating the time candidates actually spend making it.

[MathCodeLove]

If you’re spending the time applying and submitting something then you might as well spend the extra 30 minutes or so to do it right, no?

[Aeolun]

Any time someone says ‘should only take a few hours’ they’re far underestimating the time it actually takes.

[johnnyanmac]

It's never been 30 minutes for me. Even leetcode timed exams tended to be 60-90 minutes.

recently I spent a good 10 hours making a crossword solver. Hiring freeze a few days after I turned it in. I completely get GP's mentality.

[halfcat]

Not if you’re applying to hundreds, or thousands of jobs. Unless you know someone, it’s a quantity game.

[dahart]

I’ve screened a lot of resumes and given a lot of interviews over the years, and it’s usually obvious when people are trying the scattershot approach, they just don’t match. I feel like treating it like a quantity game is unlikely to improve your odds, and tbh spamming out hundreds or thousands of applications sounds like a miserable way to spend time. You could spend that time meeting and talking to people. I’ve never applied to more than 2 jobs at once, jobs that I actually want, and never had trouble getting at least one of them (and it still takes time and effort and some coding and interviews).

[nsxwolf]

It wouldn’t be obvious they’re using a scattershot approach when they’re a good match, though. I don’t see the downside.

[dahart]

Maybe not at the resume screening phase, but it’s usually still obvious once the interviews start when people aren’t interested in your specific company. Some people get lucky, sure, but the downside is that you have to get lucky, it’s wasting valuable time on low probability events. If you’re familiar with the statistical process of importance sampling, in my experience on both sides of the interview table, it’s effective and worthwhile to spend more time curating higher quality samples than to scatter and hope.

[johnnyanmac]

>but it’s usually still obvious once the interviews start when people aren’t interested in your specific company.

Can you really blame them? If you're not a houshold name, why would you expect someone to spend hours researching your specific company?

On the other hand, it can come off as creepy if your a small company and suddenly someone nerds out about how your CEO said this one thing at a talk years ago and knows your lead has cancer based on his personal blog. I'd rather just treat it as a transaction of my skills and services for money. We are not a family (multiple layoffs have taught me so)

> it’s effective and worthwhile to spend more time curating higher quality samples than to scatter and hope.

Not in this market. Too many ghost jobs, too many people ghosting after multiple rounds. Too many hiring freezes when you spend a month talking with a company. If you want respect from candidates, don't disrespect them.

[ninetyninenine]

You don’t understand reality. If all companies have 1000 candidates your only approach is scattershot.

The only time the bespoke approach works is if you have like 30 candidates only. But then there are still issues here because the candidate is still one in thirty so if he does a bespoke approach 30 times it takes an inordinate amount of time.

[dahart]

That’s not reality. Not all companies have 1000 candidates. Not all companies have even 30 candidates.

[ninetyninenine]

This is the reality nowadays. There's an abundance of candidates thanks to bootcamps.