The problems with the alternative - interviewing based on problem solving and coding challenges are:
1) For the most part it doesn't work. Companies like Google, that have reflected on and assessed their own interviewing success, have come to the conclusion that there is little correlation between how well people interviewed in this style do on the interview vs how well they perform on the job. This is a pretty low bar to beat!
2) If you are interviewing for 10-20-30 year senior with a track record of success and adding value, how can you possibly hope to assess that via problem based challenges, especially if conducted by a less senior developer who doesn't themself have the skill set and track record you are hiring for? How do you know if the person just talks a good game and can throw around high level concepts, or can actually deliver?
I do think there is some value to problem solving as a small part of the interview process, but certainly not if this comes at the expense of ignoring the candidate's actual experience and accomplishments which is the best indication of what they are capable of.
Google has notoriously one of the worst hiring processes in the entire tech industry.
Only if you are REALLY bad at interviewing !
And what's the alternative - you want to hire someone to head up your infrastructure modernization based on acing LeetCode challenges and drawing a few diagrams on the whiteboard ?
I work with many ex-Googlers that did a lot of interviewing and they process has been pretty consistent for many years now, and seen largely successful.
I'm fully aware that according to the internet, there is an epidemic of bullshit artists who can go deep on the architecture and tradeoffs and their contribution to the things they worked on, without having actually contributed to those things, but I dunno, the narrative just doesn't jibe with my anecdotal experience.
My only uncertainty here is that I do think I have been very fortunate in the people I have worked with in my career, so I might just be getting lucky. But I have truly never worked with someone who is hired largely on the basis of a strong resume, but genuinely can't grok fizzbuzz, or whatever the contemporary equivalent of that is.
I also recognize that you ran a real company doing real work on this, so I'm generally inclined to defer to your wisdom...
You can tell that I'm very torn on this, because the conventional wisdom is so strongly against my perspective on it, and I generally put a good deal of weight on conventional wisdom. But man, I dunno, it all really feels like an inertia thing that I increasingly question the original foundations of. Sometimes the emperor actually doesn't have any clothes on...
Second, how well the "stint" comes across in the interview is a question of how skilled the candidate is at talking. You can make anything sound like anything in an interview. The interviewer has no reliable way of checking.
I've written a bunch of words in this thread about how I'm skeptical of your second paragraph. I recognize that you and many people I know and have discussed this with are adamant about this being true, and yet I remain unconvinced. I have interviewed many people, some of whom attempted to talk up their previous experience unconvincingly, and some of whom were impressive but nevertheless unsuccessful after being hired, for various reasons. I still haven't come across this person who can go into depth about their previous projects, while being a total incompetent bullshitter. I'm certain such people exist. I'm unconvinced that they are as pervasive as all the discourse on this would have me believe.