Hacker News Reader

One adtech company I applied to ~10 years ago (Chango - doesn't exist anymore) also put me through the strangest interview I ever had. It was for an SRE role.

There was a fairly standard phone screening interview, but then when I went in-person the CTO, VP of engineering, and somebody else I can't recall made the whole interview about torrents and USENET feeds for TV shows. Not a single serious discussion was had about the business or technology, despite my attempts to bring it up. I left scratching my head and a follow-up email that said "they were going to go in a different direction".

I can only guess that the role was going to somebody else they really wanted, but they needed a "competitive" alternative. I was annoyed that they wasted my time, though.

I've had something similar happen but I was actually hired. One of the rounds was with a super senior CTO-like type, and they questioned me about low level details of building Linux CLI tools, which is something I've never done or really didn't know anything about.

I think the idea was to pick an area the interviewer was super familiar with, and see how you can handle stress, can you say "I don't know", can you make some guesses even in the space you are not familiar with and so on. Is it the most effective way of doing interviews? Probably not. But it's not a terrible screen either for common pitfalls with senior engineers.

> Not going to say which one

Nothing will change until online naming and shaming is not considered taboo.

I just don't want my name ASSOCIATED with that kind of PRESS, ok??

I'm glad you clarified - I was expecting NYT!

I don't know what you're talking about :)

make an anon account.

Are there laws against companies committing fraud and false advertising? Job sites are directly evolved from classified ads in which ads stands for Advertisement.

You think there's law on the books that forces companies to speak honestly? And that someone is going to enforce it?

Probably, but good luck getting enough evidence to prove anything. So long as they would hire someone with some unlikely to exist background they can advertise even if they don't hire.

Nothing will change until employees get proper protections against whistleblowing.

This is extremely common. In fact, it is the rule at universities and government agencies and government contractors, who are required to post every job even when they have a preferred candidate, and many big tech companies do the same thing. It wouldn't matter if you named the company – literally every large organization has done this dozens or hundreds of times.

If they had just blanket-declined me then I don't think I would have cared all that much, it's far from the first (or thousandth) job I've been declined for; what annoyed me is that they made me go through a stupid video seminar thing before they had even read my resume.

They're going to waste two hours of my time and not even give me the courtesy of reading my resume? Pretty douchey, IMO.

Send a bill.

Oh, I hear you. In some cases, they may be required to document how many candidates went through the entire process, to "prove" that it was genuinely competitive.

My policy is: no tests, no seminars, no long interviews. Max 2hs before there is a clear sign of real interest.

I’ve seen enough people doing 2hs tests+ 3 2hs interviews + 2hs disertation showing what you can… at the end seems the probability of being hired is inversely proportional to the effort required.

I've got one better...

A recruiter called me for a job interview, said I was perfect for the role.

"Sure!", I responded, "Just send me the Job Description, I need it before I interview".

The recruiter was a bit slow on sending the JD through, but eventually did so and organised an interview.

During the interview I was confused as to what the hiring manager was telling me, "I'm confused, the Job Description describes a different role with different technology?", I said while holding the printout in my hand.

"Can I have a look at that?", asked the hiring manager.

"Sure...", I start sliding it across the table when the HR person slams down their hand and snatches it.

"OKAY! MEETING IS OVER!" shrills the HR lady, and we all leave the room in a confused manner.

Afterward, I called the HR lady to follow up on the role, she hangs up, calls the recruiter and angrily tells him to never let interviewees contact the company directly ever again!

...

What happened?!?

I checked the meta-data in the Job Description word document and it was over 3 years old.

I asked another recruiter what they thinked occurred...they replied that the HR lady likely never wrote a Job Description for the role but just called the recruiter asking him to send a body over.

The recruiter, keen to send me through for the interview and collect their payment, found another job description from the company from an old email from the same company and figured it would do.

Probably dodged a bullet there anyway, if they weren't even willing to create a basic job description for the role. It's not like it's that hard to write one; you could pretty easily just find a template online and replace relevant keywords.

I actually got a job there a year later.

The HR lady in question had since left the company.

I kid you not, I later found her in a newspaper article where she was asking advice on her new startup business venture proposal - a clothes shop where people try clothes on and then order online. They included a picture of her in and her business partner in the write-up, but the response the editor provided her was she needed to better understand the risks (understatement of the year).

Why do companies allow these people in such positions, I have no idea.

It's fairly likely they just confused about which candidate was which. Happens all the time.

Definitely possible, but the recruiter said, and I believe him, that he followed up with the hiring manager and asked him to clarify it, because the recruiter was also confused by the "manager's resume" feedback. The hiring manager doubled down.

It's possible that the hiring manager was just embarrassed and didn't want to admit fault, but I still think they were using me and the recruiter for compliance reasons, especially since I reached out to that recruiter a year later and apparently that role was never filled, at least not from that recruiting agency.

Wait, which newspaper did you say you work for again?

> A major one.