I meant it in the broader sense of "the people who are interviewing me". I have been asked to program a simple blog system with various features, which seemed like a rather bad use of my time.

That same system was implemented on the company's website later on, which didn't make me feel any better. To top it all off, they never even replied.

I talk to them, ask them to show me some code samples they've written or projects they've developed in their spare time. If someone tells me they've written and launched an entire product with thousands of users by themselves, it's a bit counterproductive for me to ask them to code up a blog.

How would that work for someone who has a job where their code is proprietary and, in their spare time, they like gardening? Or do you just automatically exclude folks who don't develop their own sites with 1000s of users?

Ugh, why does everyone miss the point? If they can't show me any code, I'll talk to them and see if they know what they're talking about. I've found that you can tell whether or not someone is technically competent from a five-minute chat.

Thanks for that clarification - as someone whose code is doubly unshareable, like healsdata I'm a bit sensitive to claims of screening by github.

A) How many of those people who run their own products with thousands of users come looking for a job with you? (or, perhaps, 'ran' in the past tense)

B) How do you know they programmed that app with thousands of users even remotely well? Did they store passwords in plaintext? Does it need to be reboot every 5 mins? Is it slow as molasses, but hidden behind load balancing?

Someone could have written awesome sites with 1000s of users and loads of revenue, but it might still have been done like crap, and doesn't belong anywhere on your network.

A) I was illustrating a point, but I will clarify it as it didn't come across: If someone demonstrates extraordinary ability in projects before the interview, I will not ask them to spend four hours demonstrating rudimentary ability.

B) I ask them questions about the implementation.

Thank you for the clarification. It read like you'd give someone a pass based on stated achievements, rather than demonstrable knowledge and skills.

Oh no, I was mostly commenting on my past experience. If someone shows past achievements, I'm going to adjust the interview to their level, rather than ask them rudimentary questions or ask them to implement rudimentary and time-consuming functionality.

You can get a feel for whether the candidate can program a simple blog by asking them how they'd do it, you don't have to ask them to spend hours actually doing the nitty-gritty...