That's an important knock against processes that do both interviews and WSTs ("take homes"). We don't: we exclusively use WSTs. We calibrate the amount of time our WSTs should take against the amount of time a typical interview process takes. There's a lot of stuff we can't do --- like expansive programming tests, or, for that matter, sharing our answer rubrics --- that we wish we could, precisely because we're fitting the whole process into a tight time budget.

We don't time our WSTs; it adds cortisol to the process that defeats some of the purpose of simulating what actually working here is like. So, it is the case that people can end up blowing way past our expected time budget working on things. We're not going to stop people from doing that; it would be hard to do, and we're also excited to get candidates who teach themselves stuff as they go. We're up front about this.

From my vantage point, this process is strictly better than conventional interviews. It demands the same amount of time from candidates, but allows the candidates to pick where and when to spend that time.

There is a lot of understandable enmity built up against "take homes" because firms have added them to their existing interview loop, so they become just another hurdle candidates have to clear before running through the same interviews they always have.

With respect to feedback: at some point in our process, we do start giving feedback. It has not been my experience that it is as appreciated by candidates as people on message boards seem to think it is. We've gotten to the point where we try to do a decent job of explaining what the best submissions have in common, and leave it at that. This kind of feedback is more than I'd ever come to expect from conventional interviews, so I'm at peace with it.

Finally, at to again be candid: we got a huge flood of candidates for several roles, and while for the most part we kept up and gave timely responses to people who submitted challenge responses, there have definitely been ticket mishaps that caused people not to get responses --- in other words, we've ghosted people. I fucking hated getting ghosted when I was applying for jobs and am mortified by the fact that we did it too. What I can say there is: we've never done that deliberately, and when we've caught that happening, we've gotten detailed feedback out quickly. So if the premise of your comment is: "submitting a code challenge and then never hearing anything back at all, even so much as a pass/fail, is bullshit", then yes, I agree, it's total bullshit. Not OK at all.

(With respect to the coding challenges we're talking about today: the public ones aren't a part of our hiring process at all! They're just there for people who are interested in them. We do have a related challenge Kyle and Ben worked on, as a post-L3 leveler. It's not a small challenge. But: any candidate that gets that challenge already knows they're getting an offer from us, so we're comfortable making it ambitious).

No, the premise of my comment is that faceless project-based assignments without applicant-specific feedback are a totally one-sided way of interviewing that completely caters to the company's values (e.g. scalability, leanness) and not the candidate's. Who spends 8h on an assignment, gets a generic "sorry", and does not wonder why? At least in a face-to-face interview I can at least go back in my memory and try to figure out what the cues were. There is none of that in a generic, fully automated screening process

Nothing about our process is "fully automated" --- as people who've gotten weeks-delayed responses to inquiries from me can attest, we've barely managed to automate email.