Yes. It's a lot of work on both sides to interview and be interviewed.
If you don't take a candidate's prior art into consideration, you're wasting everyone's time. You're also eliminating candidates who may excel in ways that aren't solving riddle-problems out-loud in front of new people when their livelihood is on the line.
Start with the GH and if you have doubts fall back to portions of old model.
> So I'm supposed to spend my time researching your GH instead of just letting you spend 5 minutes proving it?
I've never seen a worthwhile programming q take only 5 mins to answer. And the candidate is supposed to waste an hour of her time proving to you what you could see in 5 minutes on GH?
> There isn't enough time in a day to research every candidate's code they wrote on their own time
Yet there is enough time to spend with whiteboarding problems that prove the same things the candidate has already proved on their GH?
> (and personally I'd rather not be judged by mine).
Sure - only use the candidate's GH if they prominently put it on their profile and/or own an "intended to be used/seen" public repo.
> And, if people lie on their resumes already, what makes me trust their GH?
Not a replacement for conversation! It's a way of indicating they can code without solving an arbitrary riddle in a high-pressure situation. If you're not convinced they wrote or understand the code you're looking at, ask them about it or ask them how they might change it slightly.
This is fair, it's just not realistic for a lot of places. In the places where I've worked and interviewed people, this was not my main responsibility. Typically I'd get a resume that morning and have to prioritize looking at it along with whatever else I had going on that day.
If you don't take a candidate's prior art into consideration, you're wasting everyone's time. You're also eliminating candidates who may excel in ways that aren't solving riddle-problems out-loud in front of new people when their livelihood is on the line.
Start with the GH and if you have doubts fall back to portions of old model.
> So I'm supposed to spend my time researching your GH instead of just letting you spend 5 minutes proving it?
I've never seen a worthwhile programming q take only 5 mins to answer. And the candidate is supposed to waste an hour of her time proving to you what you could see in 5 minutes on GH?
> There isn't enough time in a day to research every candidate's code they wrote on their own time
Yet there is enough time to spend with whiteboarding problems that prove the same things the candidate has already proved on their GH?
> (and personally I'd rather not be judged by mine).
Sure - only use the candidate's GH if they prominently put it on their profile and/or own an "intended to be used/seen" public repo.
> And, if people lie on their resumes already, what makes me trust their GH?
Not a replacement for conversation! It's a way of indicating they can code without solving an arbitrary riddle in a high-pressure situation. If you're not convinced they wrote or understand the code you're looking at, ask them about it or ask them how they might change it slightly.