Same. Now that I am on the other side I send out a short piece of code and ask the person to point out all the errors in it. There are about 20. It takes about 5-10 minutes of the candidates time and I have had a lot of success with it.
Really wish more interviews were like this. My favorite onsite interview was when the interviewer printed out a class from the actual system I'd be working on (as I verified for myself later), asked me to figure out what it did, any errors I found, and a few ideas to improve or refactor it. Then he took my code sample and asked me to describe what it did as well.
After that he said "Okay, I know you know enough to handle the job, now I'm curious how much you really know. " (This is key, I feel. He specified I wasn't going to get dinged for not knowing the answers, so I didn't feel the pressure in the questions he asked afterwards, when I usually feel intense pressure, as I know I've been passed over for getting a single question wrong in multiple interviews in the past.) He then asked me some pretty deep questions about low level memory and other things, and if I said I didn't know he turned into teacher mode and taught me the concept.
I actually walked out of that interview having learned something new and useful. I then got to chat with the President very casually, and I received a job offer a few days later.
The interviewer new his stuff, too. He'd been programming arcade games in assembly for decades. His games have sold millions of dollars, and two of the series still get made today.
Ever since, I figured if a freaking legend could be satisfied after reviewing some code and a code sample, the crap I've had to endure everywhere else is completely and totally unnecessary, and it's just frustrated me to no end.
I had a very similar experience many years ago. It was an start-up. The interviewer was the ex-CTO of a widely used open source project/product, and led the engineering team in the start-up. Although I regarded myself a good engineer, I was pretty nervous.
After several questions that he was sure I knew the regular stuffs and was qualified for the job, he said he was going to ask some really hard questions to see how much I really knew and what was my thought process. The questions had no simple answers. Each of them required knowledge and experiences from a few technical fields. I didn't know much then. He guided me how to solve the problems, discussed the pros and cons of each approach. Then he told me how they did it, how other products in the same category did it, etc.
The half-hour interview was prolonged to one and a half. At the end, he said, "You have a very intuition on what are the right directions to go when facing unknown complex issues", and gave me an offer. It is my best interview experience. (I didn't join the start-up due to other reasons.)
The technologies have been advanced in a blazing fast speed i the last 10 plus years. Technical interviews, on the contrary, regress in a similar speed.
