I'd wager your company must have the worst devs, those who have little self respect and zero other prospects.
Do you not understand that you're requesting free labor from an applicant? Did you forget the purpose isn't to have the sickest challenge ever but to evaluate someone's code/ingenuity?
A 2-4 hour challenge is less time than I've spent in interviews at some companies, and would gladly have done it prior to an in-person interview given the option. That way, the actual interview time could have been spent talking about things of value, rather than having them stare at me while I white-board out problems around graph data structures and recursion and whatever other trite trivia they can come up with.
If you give me a 2 hour challenge with a timer so I can't possibly take more than 2 hours, I'm fine with that - but you won't accomplish the "lower stress" goal.
But if you give me a 2 hour challenge without timing? I know for sure other people will have spent 8 hours making super-polished, gold-plated solutions. Can I afford to fall behind the competition? If not, I should spend 8 hours too.
I helped redesign the code challenge at one of the companies I worked for. We (the people across the different technical disciplines we hired for) put a lot of effort into ensuring that:
* the challenge could be completed in 4 hours * the challenge resembled the sort of work people would do on the job * the goal of the challenge was to inform a follow up interview, not punish people * candidates were explicitly told that they were not being timed, but that we expected the challenge should take them up to 4 hours to give an idea of the upper-bound level of effort expected
The single biggest challenge was balancing "what do we need to know" versus "what would we like to know" versus the amount of time we were asking of our candidates.
We didn't hard-fail anyone unless they were blatantly not a good fit from their submission, and I habitually wrote multiple pages of feedback for them so they at least got something for their time if they didn't get a follow up interview.
Again, the purpose of the challenge was not a screen, so much as it was to help guide the in-person interview and so we had something concrete that we could discuss.
Follow up edit: Designing code challenges is hard. You have to avoid something so objective it can be copy-pasted from stack overflow, but objective enough that it can be graded free from personal bias (as much as possible anyway). On top of that, you can't test for MVC+CQRS+FP+SOLID+every-other-possible-thing under the sun, because you have to be respectful of candidate's times.
The previous code challenge (the one I replaced) would frequently take people 8-20 hours to complete, and it was actually pretty simple. As you rightly pointed out though, candidates often read far more into the requirements than were actually there, and would often over-achieve in an effort to stand out. Not only would those submissions waste their time, it wasted ours as well as they took longer to develop feedback from.
Unless your challenge literally stops at, "make X appear onscreen" with no regard for quality, testing, etc. Giving unchecked/unverified time restraints isn't fair. It doesn't matter you're giving more time than it should take to complete. If the task can be done in 2 hours, but you give "6" and Candidate A does it in 3, but Candidate B does it in 32 (but tells you 6) you're ranking two totally different submissions. Candidate B might have a super polished submission, while Candidate A has a baseline submission.
The poster you replied to was suggesting that tests should be either 1) not based on quality of submission and simply rely on difficulty so that only a few candidates can complete them or 2) based on quality and difficulty, but with a checked and verified time to keep the playing field level. However those options are both at odds with "low stress."
So, if someone submitted something that could have been done better, see might ask what could be done to improve it in the follow up interview. A good answer would include the technical bits, and a better answer would describe the time recommendation and why a more polished version would take longer or be considered over-architecting.
This purpose- to inform a conversation with a concrete, familiar code base- is better than both take-home screen assignments as well as the in-person whiteboard exercises, which encourage route memorization and don't reflect the nature of the job we were hiring for.
Two of the last three companies I interviewed at had at least 4 hours of in-person interviews. One of those (for a regular developer position, around 7 years ago) had multiple whiteboard sessions with different people. The problems were trivial to solve if you had access to google or had memorized basic data structures and related algorithms. Instead of taking half an hour or an hour talking about the code I'd written to solve a problem representative of what the actual job entailed, we spent 4x as much time (during business hours) talking about things freshmen learn in CS programs (I'm assuming here, I didn't get a CS degree).
Even if the total amount of time is the same, or even greater, I still prefer the take-home assignment because I can do it on my own time, rather than taking off of work, and - if done correctly - makes for a much interview.
As a candidate, you learn far more about the people you're going to be working with than in a whiteboard session as well.
How did this become acceptable practice for hiring people? Do any other industries besides tech do this?
I think the only fair option is an in-person interview without homework assignments. Treats everyone the same and doesn't require inordinate time commitment.
If I want to interview at 6 places that just use onsite interviewing it's easy to figure out how to prepare.
I'm not sure where I stand on this sort of thing to be honest, my only experience of anything similar was a pre-interview task to implement a simple 10 entry LRU cache, and after getting the job I was told the only reason it was there was to weed out time wasters with next to zero skill being sent by the recruitment company.
This rings so true for me re: the last shop I was at. People got off giving "hard" problems and watching dev suffer and then giving high praise for the ones that could take the heat. That place was really toxic.
Absolutely worth it if it gets you the right job. Hell, most people pay multiples of that through recruiters and referrals.
Maybe 10% of them get back to you with an interview request and that leads to a code challenge. It's highly plausible for a senior Dev to be simultaneously interviewing with multiple companies and have 5-10 pending code challenges. That shit adds up...
But the company sees the value in doing it, and many people dont see the value in doing it for themselves.