zlacker

>>whoish+(OP)
Be careful during their interview. The interviewer will trick you (with a witty "all candidates fail on this case") in a corner case mentioned orally but missing from the written test cases to support.

Also, be careful, the while the code for the pre-interview features all the logic to run tests case, the "human" interview will miss this feature and you'll lose time re-implementing a makeshift system during the call.

>>alacom+PI
Please don't do this. The rules of this thread (see top text) include: "Commenters: please don't reply to job posts to complain about something. It's off topic here."

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16967563 and marked it off-topic.

>>dang+JN
This didn't read like a complaint at all, but, rather, merely helpful advice on how to navigate their interview process.

Over the years of perusing this thread, it seems that more and more commentary has been deemed off-topic. As such, I'd ask that the rules at the top text be more explicit in what is actually permitted here, which is clearly much narrower than the rest of HN.

Alternatively, maybe just make it post-only with no comments permitted, since I, for one, would no longer even mention something like an typo'd URL for fear it would be considered complaining.

>>mmt+Vb3
There's an entire genre of people bringing hard feelings from job interview processes into these threads and sticking them to the companies posting ads. Some of this must surely be justified, some one-sided, and some completely misleading. The trouble is that we have no way to tell which is which, and getting into detail would only take the threads further into the weeds. So I don't see what choice we have but to treat all of it as off topic.

In a way it's too bad, because job searching sucks and hiring sucks and it would be good if there were a process to sort through all this. But I'm skeptical that any internet forum can function as that kind of courtroom, and certainly the Who Is Hiring threads cannot.

>>dang+Ci3
An explanation isn't what I was asking for. What I was asking for was a more explicit or even technological restriction to remove the ambiguity and the potential mine field for users of a special set of rules for this thread.

I already understood the reasoning, though I firmly disagree, especially with the conclusion. As I believe there's nothing wrong with a thread going "into the weeds" so long as the discussion remains civil and relevant to the comment chain, something hardly unique to Who Is Hiring. As such, you certainly have the choice of merely allowing complaints among other commentary, as is the general case on the rest of the forum.