> Almost none of them are bad and it's also a very objective (at least on paper) process which is probably why Google is happy to stick with the process but most of them also aren't amazing innovators.
Oh, wow, if I could get that kind of result ("almost none of them bad", my addition: "possibly great") from an interview, I would stick with that process.
I have also conducted interviews in a company with heavy focus on code tests, which obviously favors competitive programmers, and my anecdata was that I got very good results compared to the alternative (i.e. not doing that).
That said - that way of conducting interviews pretty often makes you feel like a jerk. And that is uncomfortable for both sides.
And I believe this is why this discussion always keeps popping up. And it makes you discard a lot of "possibly great" candidates at the cost of "almost none of them bad".
Oh, wow, if I could get that kind of result ("almost none of them bad", my addition: "possibly great") from an interview, I would stick with that process.
I have also conducted interviews in a company with heavy focus on code tests, which obviously favors competitive programmers, and my anecdata was that I got very good results compared to the alternative (i.e. not doing that).