I don't interview alone. We used to do interviews alone in sequence but realized we were just wasting time.
You also skipped out on something I explicitly mentioned, which is that there are times I go over when it is called for. (Recall that the median interview result is "obviously no".)
Also bear in mind when I talk about "wasting time", I'm also concerned about the candidates time. Spending 8 hours interviewing someone that you decided "no" on in the first 30 seconds is doing nobody favors. That people defend this practice boggles my mind. (I don't know if you're defending that or not, but I've seen it defended elsewhere.)
(Also note I did not say you should turn them out in 30 seconds, that's not respectful either. They should have a chance to convince you you are wrong. It's rare, but it happens. But the third hour vs. the fourth hour is unlikely to produce any changes.)
Time is money, and that includes the candidate's time. The idea of flying people out for a two-day interview cycle actually sort of angers me unless they're planning on compensating me for it, and I mean with more than a few free meals and a hotel stay.
You also skipped out on something I explicitly mentioned, which is that there are times I go over when it is called for.
I didn't ignore that, I was thinking about it when I suggested people taking a variable amount of time to perform an interview.
Spending 8 hours interviewing someone that you decided "no" on in the first 30 seconds is doing nobody favors. That people defend this practice boggles my mind. (I don't know if you're defending that or not, but I've seen it defended elsewhere.)
I am absolutely not defending that practice. If, for example, you plan to have six people do consecutive interviews and you also give each person a veto, there is no reason to have person two through five do the interview if person one votes "NO HIRE."
On the other hand, if your policy is to have a discussion after each interview where the interviewer raises concerns that subsequent interviewers may wish to address, then person one might terminate their interview but persons two through five might feel it's still worthwhile to continue. Or perhaps not.
The idea of flying people out for a two-day interview cycle actually sort of angers me unless they're planning on compensating me for it, and I mean with more than a few free meals and a hotel stay
I think you are mixing your strategy for getting hired with a discussion about the best strategy for hiring. I always try to remember that it is not my job to hire myself, therefore when putting together an interview process it may make sense to do things that would cause me personally to decline to pursue the opportunity. To give a very simple example, I personally do not like writing code in an interview. I strongly dislike trying to "Guess the coding style the interviewer is thinking of." I never know if what I write will be not clever enough or too clever, especially when given something ridiculously trivial to implement. I feel a lot of pressure.
Nevertheless... I have had very good results asking candidates to write code in the interview process. Oh well!
The other thing I've embraced is that there isn't a right way to interview, or perhaps more accurately, there isn't anybody who can be trusted to identify it. This again factors into my willingness to not feel too bound up by convention.
I certainly may have brought my own feelings into the multi-day marathon issue, but it's for the purpose of making sure I understand the other side of the table. I think not appreciating giving away two days of your time is of a different nature than not liking to write code in an interview. The latter seems pretty clearly like a "suck it up" problem, if you know what I mean. Personally, I consider the interview being unpleasant for the interviewee is a given, and all I can do is minimize that, I can never eliminate it, because the stress and uncertainly is sufficient on its own to make the process unpleasant.
In interviews when I ask code problems, I try to do my best to work with the interviewee. They get to pick the language, and I'm generally not looking at any style issues at all (if by "style" we mean "things that have no impact on running code"). If anything I'm a little too accommodating when I also ask them to choose their own data structures for the problems in question. This throws a surprisingly large number of people. (It's the price of allowing people to pick their implementation language; I'm not going to go write a separate test problem for each of the ten languages I might reasonably expect to get an answer in, especially when I don't even know them all. I actually feel I've sort of blundered into a good test here; a surprising number of people know "arrays" and nothing else and choose very bad representations for things of their own free will.)
You also skipped out on something I explicitly mentioned, which is that there are times I go over when it is called for. (Recall that the median interview result is "obviously no".)
Also bear in mind when I talk about "wasting time", I'm also concerned about the candidates time. Spending 8 hours interviewing someone that you decided "no" on in the first 30 seconds is doing nobody favors. That people defend this practice boggles my mind. (I don't know if you're defending that or not, but I've seen it defended elsewhere.)
(Also note I did not say you should turn them out in 30 seconds, that's not respectful either. They should have a chance to convince you you are wrong. It's rare, but it happens. But the third hour vs. the fourth hour is unlikely to produce any changes.)
Time is money, and that includes the candidate's time. The idea of flying people out for a two-day interview cycle actually sort of angers me unless they're planning on compensating me for it, and I mean with more than a few free meals and a hotel stay.