zlacker

>>jrs235+(OP)
I disagree with his point about references. They tell you nothing and are a hundred percent of the time only going to tell you positive things about the employee, regardless of reality. No one with half a brain would ever give a reference out that wasn't going to be positive. Even if you don't have one positive reference, asking a friend to pretend to be one is easy and I don't doubt it happens even when people have qualified references. I'd much rather interview a potential employee than have to use references. The mere thought of references making any difference whatsoever in a hiring decision is rather angering in its stupidity.

>>joesmo+U7
Perhaps there's a middle ground? Interviews have a series of notorious problems. References can easily be shills, although note his recommendation to looks for references that didn't come from the candidate. Seems to me that the whole hiring process is a logically-flawed nightmare, so why not include multiple approaches?

I read the comments about only references with no interview to be jocular, not necessarily implying that he is against interviews.