> I see, you mean "someone at Google, just not the author"
Correct.
> Because the author explicitly said he doesn't do follow ups and so he doesn't know if his question is a good predictor of actual performance.
This would be difficult as a random engineer. People Ops has different access to performance/interview data so they can do this analysis; your interviewer can't (unless you share your future ratings with them and they wrote down all of the ratings).
You can do the analysis on yourself though but you'll have to jump through some hoops to get your own interview data. It's also a single data point so unless you can convince a bunch of other people to also do this it really isn't significant.
> Strange that the author doesn't mention this though.
I'll be honest, I think maybe 1k employees know that anybody has bothered to do this analysis. It would not surprise me that the author is completely unaware given most of memegen is as well.
Correct.
> Because the author explicitly said he doesn't do follow ups and so he doesn't know if his question is a good predictor of actual performance.
This would be difficult as a random engineer. People Ops has different access to performance/interview data so they can do this analysis; your interviewer can't (unless you share your future ratings with them and they wrote down all of the ratings).
You can do the analysis on yourself though but you'll have to jump through some hoops to get your own interview data. It's also a single data point so unless you can convince a bunch of other people to also do this it really isn't significant.
> Strange that the author doesn't mention this though.
I'll be honest, I think maybe 1k employees know that anybody has bothered to do this analysis. It would not surprise me that the author is completely unaware given most of memegen is as well.