
How I Gamified the Google Interview - nireyal
http://www.livingforimprovement.com/how-i-gamified-the-google-interview-and-how-you-can-too/
======
jmillikin
As someone who works at Google, this seems like a grossly excessive amount of
effort to get past interviews which just aren't that hard. It would have been
much easier to browse through the first few chapters of an algorithms
textbook, set up a simple network between two linux VMs, and (optionally)
brush up on C++/Java/Python syntax if those aren't languages you use often.

The reason Google has a reputation for hard interview problems is that before
they came around, the standard technical interview was "So, $NAME, tell me
about what you did at your last job". They were one of the first silicon-
valley companies to have technical interviews, and so it frightened all the
unqualified candidates who couldn't just coast in on good conversation skills.

Before Google, the company with a reputation for impossible interviews was
Microsoft. Like Google, I strongly doubt that their questions are anywhere
near as difficult as the rumor stream claims.

~~~
Fixnum
Yet Google still has a reputation for very selective hiring ... is that
because most of the hiring decision isn't interview-related
(degree/GPA/projects/resume)? Or is it that, while the data
structures/algorithms questions might not be too hard, it's possible that the
interviews are still difficult, due perhaps to a degree of randomness, or to
high standards (candidate is IO-bound not compute-bound, never makes a
mistake, uses of axiomatic semantics to prove correctness as she writes...)?

~~~
jmillikin
It's because, as has been observed by many others, most candidates simply
can't code.

If 90% of people who walk in the door can't implement FizzBuzz, and Google
wants to hire the top 10% of coders, then it would be expected for the
interview process to reject 99% of interview candidates. A more typical hiring
goal of "top 1% of coders" means a 99.9% rejection rate.

The phone screen process is supposed to reduce the number of low-quality
candidates, but it's a fairly coarse filter, and very easy to game.

Google cares much more about what you've accomplished than about what number
is on your transcript, what university's name is on your degree, or even
whether you have a degree. If you feel your GPA is too low to be taken
seriously, spend a few months coding and put it all online for browsing.

~~~
rizzom5000
Wow, if Google wants to hire the top 1%, it hardly means rejecting 99% of the
interview candidates.

First of all, that logic only works if Google only wants the top 1% of people
who apply to Google, and that Google is completely and absolutely incompetent
at weeding out the bottom 99% through other screening methods.

Secondly, I doubt that Google has any kind of monopoly that allows them to
determine what, exactly, the top 1% or even the top 10% is. A lot of people
are fond of throwing these percentages around without even rudimentary data to
support their notions of competence - which I think is probably fair to use as
a data point for evidence of incompetence.

Thirdly, I could go on, but...

~~~
jmillikin
I think you misread my post. Rejecting 99% of interview candidates would
provide a result of hiring the top 10% of coders, because 90% of the interview
candidates cannot write code. Hiring the top 1% requires rejecting 99.9% of
candidates.

You're assuming that other levels of screening (resumes, phone screens) must
not be working properly if there are so many bad interview candidates, but
really they're working very well. A large company will receive millions of
applications for any position, and needs to winnow that down to a few hundred
interview candidates. How many nines of rejection do you expect out of a phone
screen?

~~~
rizzom5000
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but I expect a baseline phone
screen session to reject someone who cannot FizzBuzz.

Is that so hard to accomplish without inviting someone in for an interview ? I
cannot answer in the affirmative as I do not work in HR.

~~~
mseebach
I think what is meant is that 90% are rejected at the phone screen, and the
top 10% or 1% are of those who can code, ie passes the phone screen. That
makes them 1% or 0.1% of your initial applicant pool.

------
dude_abides
Great post on the gamification aspect.

But as an aside: is it really typical for someone to prepare this hard for an
interview, even if it is for a dream company? If so, then something seems to
be clearly broken with the interview process. My idea of a superstar candidate
is not someone who memorizes possible questions and answers, but simply
someone who is really really good at what he does.

~~~
w1ntermute
Yeah, this is just stupid. I have a friend at Amazon who said I'd have no
trouble getting through their interview process, but these Google interviews
are absurd to me. Why try so hard to get a job at a company that everyone is
applying to when you can instead much more easily get a position at a lower
profile company, like Amazon or Microsoft, that will still give you
challenging and rewarding work?

Do I respect and like Google's creations more than Amazon's or Microsoft's?
Sure, but that's far from the only factor when choosing a job, even though
people act like it is.

I'll never bother applying to Google. It's a simple matter of leveraging the
principles of supply and demand in your favor.

~~~
jrockway
_Why try so hard to get a job at a company that everyone is applying to when
you can instead much more easily get a position at a lower profile company,
like Amazon or Microsoft, that will still give you challenging and rewarding
work?_

I interviewed at Amazon and Google at about the same time. I got offers from
both and chose Google because their offices are nicer, they give you free food
and lots of coffee choices, and I just got the impression that they _care_
about employees more than Amazon did. (One of my interviewers at Amazon noted:
"They deliver groceries right to your desk. But it's too expensive, so we
don't do it.")

Amazon didn't really seem like some place that I would stay at for very long,
because I would get tired of the cheapness. But some people really love being
cheap, so I guess Amazon is perfect for them. (At Amazon, they give you door
desks and a 24" monitor. At Google, we get motorized sit-to-stand desks and
30" monitors. Although I've been too lazy to request a standing desk, so
far...)

So anyway, challenging and rewarding work is nice, but it's not enough for me
personally. I need my employer to at least pretend to care about me. YMMV.

~~~
w1ntermute
My friend has in fact complained about the "door desks" at Amazon and the
ergonomic issues they can cause, so I'm aware of the cheapness issue. I've
also read Steve Yegge's accidentally-made-public Google+ rant about Amazon.
However, it's not like Google has a monopoly on nice perks. I only gave Amazon
as an example because I personally know an employee.

And obviously since you got offers from both companies, you would have no
reason to pick Amazon over Google. But that's not the point I'm making - I'm
saying that _prior_ to starting the application process, it would be logical
to avoid Google. The calculus changes completely once you've already got the
offer in hand.

~~~
jrockway
Interviewing at Google took the same amount of my time as interviewing at
Amazon. Why would it not be worthwhile to peruse all options, especially when
one of the options seems better than the rest?

~~~
w1ntermute
> Interviewing at Google took the same amount of my time as interviewing at
> Amazon.

Both of which consist of a sequence of several interviews that can take a
significant amount of time, time that could be better used applying to other
companies.

> Why would it not be worthwhile to peruse all options, especially when one of
> the options seems better than the rest?

Because it's not better, not _on the whole_. The nice perks are only one
factor - the competitiveness of the interview process must be considered as
well. When my competitors, such as the guy who wrote TFA, are willing to go to
fanatical lengths to do well in the interview process, it's not worth the
trouble of applying.

In fact, with lower competitiveness among applicants at other companies, I
could demand a higher salary, and then use that salary to buy gourmet
food/coffee and pay for Instacart to get the same grocery delivery services
you get for free at Google. You shouldn't forget that a lot of those Google
perks are fungible, given a higher salary. Actually, I would prefer the cash
over the free coffee - I hate the taste of coffee and it gives me indigestion,
so I don't benefit at all from free gourmet coffee at work.

~~~
eshvk
I have been told that these "perks" make sense if you are a young (starving)
grad just out of school for whom the idea of anything that is not Ramen or
Cold Pizza is heavenly. However, when you get older, you find that cold cash
can pay for things like diapers, child care and that additional car that your
family needs.

(Personally, I am not a big fan of the free food anywhere (I like eating
healthy at home). I prefer getting paid more and getting to do my work without
any drama. )

------
charlieflowers
I was surprised to see no positive comments here at all (at the time I posted
this comment).

So let me say: thank you for an excellent article. Yes, intrinsic motivation
is great, and yes, cramming is not the most effective long-term learning
approach. However, there are always going to be short-term challenges to
overcome that require something like cramming. That's just part of life. And
this is a novel, intriguing approach to it that worked for someone in the real
world.

Thought-provoking and enlightening. Exactly the kind of thing I hope to find
on Hacker News.

~~~
jacalata
Agreed.I particularly liked the 'reward feint' idea, and now I might even
watch the linked video talk.

(Possibly the article title could have been tweaked to avoid some of the
piling-on: How I hacked my interview preparation process?).

~~~
rlu
Wouldn't you catch on to your own trick after a while?

------
incision
Lots negativity here.

The guy appears to have enjoyed himself while exploring a fairly unique skill
in the process of working towards a major personal goal.

Seems like a multiple win to me.

------
intended
Wow, thats a lot of negativity here.

There were some neat tricks to use here:

1) The reward feint - people are statistically terrible prognosticators of
what would make them happy. Setting a stretch reward which actually uses this
aspect of to create a positive outcome is really neat.

2) The variable reward schedule? just 2 coin flips is a really stupidly
obvious solution, and variable reward schedules are like crack for the brain.

3) How he dealt with high energy requirement prep, during low energy periods.
That's something I've faced and I used to just say "man I've just got to work
through it."

These were some obvious things executed nicely. For people who are facing
trouble with intrinsic motivation, this is something that can be set up and
launched and will helps you get through the hump.

edit: flow/redundant bits removed.

------
ender7
I'm all for finding ways to motivate yourself, but there's no need to spend
this much time on interview prep.

Google is a great company to work for, but there are many other good ones out
there, and any application process is always a roll of the dice. Google turns
away plenty of extremely qualified people (as do every other large tech
company) and they also occasionally hire some incompetent ones. Pinning your
hopes on a single company is a recipe for disappointment.

------
dinkumthinkum
The problem is this is a little disturbing and honestly pretty unhealthy; i.e.
I think this would lead to some kind of burnout or breakdown either mentally
or physically. Sure, it seems like an awful lot of work for the ultimate
reward of working at Google, not exactly like winning the Nobel prize or
something.

Earning energy drinks for performing tasks that seem to almost require energy
drinks in the first place seems to be a scary feedback loop. I think the other
major issue with this is your treating yourself like some kind of machine or
simple animal that performs tricks or that runs toward dangling carrots. If
you have the discipline, which I wouldn't, to stick this burnout game, it
seems like you should have the discipline to take a more reasonable and
measured approach to doing an _appropriate_ level of study/preparation without
all this stuff. And all this business of mechanistically surrendering yourself
to progress bars ... I think people that go to this extreme need to study more
humanities and learn more big picture kind of things; this is like describing
behavior one would find in characters in some dystopian novel.

------
ianstallings
_Laughs and just closes browser_. I've had enough guys.

------
adnam
This is just sad.

~~~
mkenyon
Can you expound on why you feel this way? Personally, I prefer the strength of
intrinsic rewards. Gamification seems to devalue my effort. But I'm not
denying that it works for people. It might not be a perfect solution, but an
80% solution is better than not preparing for an interview or not being active
(FitBit). Why dismiss this outright?

~~~
chubot
I think it's less about the gamification than about the disturbing trend of
"tasteless nerds who want to work at Google at all cost". It seems people just
want to get in the door and they don't even care about what they're working on
or whether it's the right job for them.

I guess the fantastic Google PR team from 2004 did a number on the psyche. It
becomes implanted in people's heads that if they work for Google, that means
they're automatically successful. (note: I work there and don't think that)

I guess it is true, outside the Bay Area, that if you tell someone you work at
Google, you will get your ego flattered. In the Bay Area this was true until
2007-2008 or so.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I resonate with this, its fine to say "I am passionate about productizing a
self driving car, and Google is the only place I can realistically see doing
that." It is another to just want to "work at Google."

So now that he's checked the box (do they still do slotting? If so the box
isn't actually checked yet) what is his motivation, eat at all the cafes? Get
a months worth of t-shirts?

Hope he is wildly successful, and sad that the interview would be such a
barrier.

~~~
zem
one of my primary motivations for joining google was because i really wanted
to be in (what i felt, from talking to my friends that worked there, was) a
place that was passionate about the quality and health of their codebase, and
that was constantly striving not just for better things to do but for better
ways to do those things. so far (18 months in), it has pretty much been
everything i expected it to be.

it's not true that i "don't care what i'm working on", but the basic
engineering culture of google is such that i'm pretty sure i'd have been happy
here even if i hadn't got my first choice of product area. i notice an
overemphasis on hacker news about how there should be one Problem You're
Passionate About Solving, and that that should be what drives you, but that's
very much a psychology-of-the-individual thing.

------
rizzom5000
It's an interesting article, but I doubt the gamification stuff would work for
me at all.

It does nothing for me to create some artificial reward unrelated to the goal
I'm trying to accomplish. If accomplishing the goal isn't reward enough on its
own, then why should I do it? That's especially true if the reward is
something I can I have anyway. There is no net gain by depriving myself of an
energy drink in my refrigerator for another hour. The energy drink was already
mine; and was mine to have when I decided to have it. The gamification idea
seems trite to me.

------
sonabinu
What is wrong with preparing hard. I love how he gamified the interview and
used the right tools for motivation. Imagine applying this to other facets
like project completion, study etc ...

------
angryasian
theres nothing wrong with proper preparation, but the whole idea of gamifying
the process seems incredibly unnecessary. As an employer I look for people
that are very self motivated, and don't require any external motivations like
an ipad to do something. If someone told me they needed this type of effort to
get something done that as in his words "is a dream of mine", then he already
failed my test.

~~~
eshvk
He generated his own motivation: His external motivations were bought with his
own money. Why is this a problem as long as he gets the job done? Everyone
gets motivated by something: After all, as an employer, surely you do pay your
employees, don't you? That does act as some sort of motivation. Otherwise,
they would be all working for you for free just driven by all that "self-
motivation".

~~~
angryasian
in the context of work yes. But in the context of learning or bettering your
skills and yourself... this type of motivation is best from people that want
to do it because they want to make themselves better. So if everytime I expect
him to learn something new that will help him in his career path, I have to
give him a bonus or a raise it doesn't scale.

------
zigzagzug
I was expecting to read something about what he read, trained, etc. for the
interview. "Gamification"? Ridiculous.

~~~
taloft
Agreed. This is a simple case of doing good preparation. Gamification has zero
to do with it. Sadly, he spent the entire article talking about the wrong
thing, because gamification is his SEO soapbox. "Must make square peg fit in
round hole."

------
zapfmann
Man, the whole story is quite sad.

Dream company?

Hope you love working there for ... ever!

------
rtkwe
Anyone else get an annoying social share floating toolbar making the bottom
third or so of the page unreadable? Firefox 17.

------
tankbot
The floating Social Media Integration Station covers the words of the piece on
Safari.

