I already do some of that reading code for some profiles, although it's more geared towards finding mistakes in the code. I like the proposed approach here, will try to do some more of it.

I so much agree with this. Interviews are just better one on one. Mind the stress of the candidate.

Since I keep telling candidates interviews are also for them to know the company before hand, I welcome this kind of list. I'd like to have more candidates ask some of that. :-)

This is indeed a nice set of tasks to evaluate a frontend tech or your mastery of it. Potentially usable in interviews?

OK, if true this is indeed an interesting test... kind of a social experiment really. Probably quite a bit ambiguous though.

I like this approach to technical interview questions. I do something similar in some cases with a mix of reading and writing.

As I keep saying to people I interview... it's also about you interviewing us! I wish I had more questions from them. This list is a bit biased to some type of companies but that's a good starting point.

Now this is truly bizarre... but apparently this happens.

Excellent series about work sample tests during interviews. Definitely good food for thought in there, I already changed how I was doing a few things with it and what I tested worked nicely so far.

Excellent series about interview questions to use.

Definitely this... the amount of times I've seen this type of "x years of y" constraints for hiring people. It's completely backwards, someone senior should be able to pick up new technologies quickly. Better focus on the ability to learn and other factors than limiting things to a particular stack.

Definitely agree with this. People are generally not used to this though. That's why one of the things I tell people during interviews is "I got a bunch of questions but there's no good or bad answer to them, they are conversation starters mostly". It's really all about knowing each other better first.

Interestingly I'm less interview averse than what's explained in this article. Depends how it's done of course, but since I think I'm also evaluating the potential employer, seeing more people gives you a better idea of how things are internally.

EN: Another one about the hiring process. Focuses mostly on the time used for the interviews though. Same thing it takes time: several long interviews. Also especially interesting it focuses on the real questions underneath the interview and there are not many of them: it's mostly about can we work together and if yes where is the candidate positioned skill wise compared to current employees. As it's very well put: "everything else is literature".

FR: Un autre article sur le processus de recrutement. Il se focalise principalement sur les entretiens. Mais comme d'habitude cela prend du temps: plusieurs entretiens longs. Il est aussi intéressant de voir que cela se focalise principalement sur les vraies questions derrière les entretiens et il n'y en a pas tant que ça: c'est principalement sur le fait de pouvoir travailler ensemble et si oui où le candidat se positionne sur le plan des compétences par rapport aux employés actuels. Et c'est très justement résumé: "le reste c'est de la littérature".

Interesting data point about hiring someone. I stay convinced that it needs to take time, it kinds of confirm it.