Sure, but at best that's unrelated to their value as an interview process. At worst, it's actually making things worse for you, because you're distracted and not doing more interviews.
Quality beats quantity. If you smash the hell out of a take-home project you won't need to do any more interviews. Companies that rely on take-homes usually are the same ones that don't make you go through Leetcode/trivia gauntlets.
My biggest advice is if they say to use 4 hours but you need 8 to do an amazingly thorough job then use 8. It's basically cheating but I've always found that it doesn't end up causing any actual problems in terms of being able to deliver at a velocity they needed in actual product work post-hire.
My biggest advice is to assume the reviewer is a bored junior running down a checklist that tests only what was in the spec. They have like five minutes budgeted for getting your project running and a pile of applications to go.
> Quality beats quantity. If you smash the hell out of a take-home project you won't need to do any more interviews.
This means a decent amount of that time spent on documentation, imho.
I do as you do, but there is a very real risk that nobody will ever look at it. Or it gets assigned to a dev (who has a lot of other real work to do) to look at and the give it a cursory once over and a thumbs up or down.
I had one where after weeks of work, tweaking, it received zero time on their eyeballs.
And I know because they never went to the link i sent. So ghosting a project is a very huge reality...
>If you smash the hell out of a take-home project you won't need to do any more interviews. Companies that rely on take-homes usually are the same ones that don't make you go through Leetcode/trivia gauntlets.
First job me believed that. Current job me has done 2 take homes that only lead to ghosts. then 1 more that lead to failing a leetcode style interview. Never again.
and I have plenty of personal projects outside of work, I don't need more pet projects like the one comment up stream.
