Applied through the website and was sent an invitation to speak with their internal recruiter. After a 30 minute conversation I was sent a "code challenge" to build a website using a REST API. I expect Senior Devs to know how to write tests, but it is clear this Engineering team does not as this test is incredibly flawed. The time is 1 - 3 hours, but I was told to take the weekend and spend some time on it. Even the test requirements state it is not a strict time limit and that if you have extra time to make it pretty, that would be great. The time I spent making it pretty was used against me as I was told I took too long to complete the test. Using TDD, I had written passing tests for all required functionality and committed them in under 3 hours, so it was an unfair disqualification. I was also given the generic "this feedback is meant to be constructive and help you", but no actual feedback was given and I was never given the opportunity to discuss the code with a developer (which is just ludicrous). After reading other reviews on Glassdoor, it is apparent this team needs to identify what they are testing for and create straightforward and systematic rules to identify if the desired condition of each test is met. Concepts such as the Sieve of Eratosthenes and Conway's Game of Life do not represent a candidate's ability to do the actual work you require and while I would have no problem solving such puzzles, I disagree with the effectiveness of such tests. If I'm building a log cabin, I would not quiz prospective builders on the ability to calculate how many stones it took to build the Great Wall of China. Rather, I would quiz them on their knowledge of logs, log cabin construction, insulation requirements, weather considerations, etc. All things that will actually need to get done at some point. Test for what you NEED and check your ego at the door before you sit down to write that test. As a result, you will hire really talented people that know how to do the work they are given and without wasting so much of other people's time in the process (and fewer negative reviews). On an aside, after reading all the reviews here, does anyone else notice that the people who were hired all seem to remember answering really easy questions, while the people who did not get hired remember answering really hard questions? I found that intriguing.

Received an email from technical recruiter on staff and scheduled a ~30 minute call for introductory interview. Next received a link to a HackerRank challenge covering a wide range of general programming questions, architecture, debugging, and a few coding challenges. The questions were moderate to difficult, some of them opinion based. They were attempting to assess overall aptitude and general knowledge and experience and included code exercises in a number of languages. Next was a 30 minute video technical interview with a development manager. We talked about experience, interest, approach, and did a live coding exercise. Next I was invited to visit head quarters in Salt Lake City. They arranged flights and hotels. I flew in the night before, spent the day in the office, and was home that night. I did an hour interview each with 5 engineers (managers and/or team leads) each consisting of a white board coding challenge designed to get insight into how you approach solving problems. Everyone was really great; each interview felt like a small paired programming session. The rest of the time was spent discussing the usual: experience, interest, culture, what it's like working there, etc. In between interviews those same engineers took me to lunch; Lots of fun conversation, much of it talking about their most recent hack week. I finished the day discussing some details with my recruiter. Then they arranged for a taxi to take me back to the airport. My recruiter called me back by early afternoon the next day.