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
I'd add a tad of context to my original comment. I probably have a lot of hard feelings against companies hiring behavior, some justified, some merely emotional. Karat however went over the top. They're trying to be extra-nice by triple checking that everything went well, but don't follow up on negative comments. It's not rocket science to properly define test cases and supported logic to run them so that the candidate focus on the implementation, the screening implements it, but not the timed phone call. Also, tricking candidates with edges cases not mentioned orally but not written is borderline dishonest.