[seabj0rn]

They also take a very data driven approach to hiring by leveraging applicant tracking systems like Greenhouse and testing platforms like HackerRank. This helps to surface top candidates and keep the operation smooth and tight.

[MCRed]

This alone tells me that they don't know what they are doing.

I interviewed for a job using Hacker Rank about 6 months ago. They insisted that I complete their problems. The problems were trivially easy (that's ok, there was a time limit so you don't want to make things too confusing or difficult) but I struggled and barely got it in on time due to how terrible the HackerRank system worked. I ran into innumerable bugs, from not compiling the code correctly (poor install of the language) to front and bugs that would cause edits to be lost -- I eventually started coding in a text editor and copy and pasting the results in to submit-- but that didn't work very well either, possible because they have an anti-cheat system or something.

I literally spent 5 minutes writing a solution to one of the answers, 1 minute running it locally (worked the first time) and then 20 minutes trying to get Hacker Rank to accept it. Some of them it never accepted-- the code would be there but I couldn't get the hacker rank system to run it to check its output.

Of course, the "scoring" on hacker rank is how fast you are and whether you get the correct output-- and this company explicitly stated that they rank people by score. This was the only "technical" part of the interview process.

Of course I told them about the issues I ran into but at some point that's going to sound like complaining, right?

So, now, I take outsourcing technical interviews to hacker rank as a sign of incompetence.

IF the hiring manager isn't technical enough to conduct a technical interview, then your company is not competently managed. PERIOD.

And hacker rank was such a joke that it shows they didn't even try it themselves.

[riffraff]

FWIW, I had to use hackerrank for an interview some time ago and it worked ok, so I'd consider that possibly the specific platform you used (i.e. Go 1.x.y or Ruby 2.x.y or whatever) might have been poorly tested.

But I wouldn't discount a company just for using that or anything like it, I think there is a reasonable use case for tools like it, i.e. as a glorified FizzBuzz to weed out obvious non-hires, which is what it felt like when I had to use it.

[collyw]

Would you get into legal trouble for naming and shaming companies with that approach, as I have encountered a fair few of them these days.

[sukilot]

Thanks for sharing that advertisement?