Readit NewsIf you don't have a 'trusted wrangler' freelancers won't build anything worthwhile as they're not interested in the long term unless forced.
Freelancers' careers live or die based on where future work is coming from. Happy clients are good for repeat business. Happy clients refer other potential clients. Happy clients are good for portfolios or case studies. Smart freelancers are all about keeping their clients happy in the long term. It's just good business.
Of course there are people in the freelance world who are hopeless and will never build anything useful just like there are people in the employment world with the same problem. But it's much more career-endangering to be incompetent as a developer and/or as a communicator in the freelance world because freelance gigs can often be terminated relatively easily if the client isn't happy with the work.
Maybe this is different in the parts of the US where compensation for tech employees can be way higher than anywhere else but in most of the world freelancers tend to be relatively good at what they do and part of the attraction of going the freelance route is that it doesn't have the glass ceiling on compensation that being an employee often does so if you're good enough to justify higher fees then you can actually charge what you're worth.
In practice this simply doesn’t pan out. There are many many terrible freelancers out there. And without someone technical in-house vetting their work, you’ll have no choice but to judge their based on their output. This is a huge problem.
Software needs to be designed with an understanding of the business needs and goals. You need someone who understands how to keep the software well designed (ie. Easy to debug, update and extend in the future).
Judging solely as a user of the software gives you no insight into whether or not a plate of spaghetti code could be holding behind the scenes.
Good code has two traits: It does the job it was designed to do. It is easy to update and maintain.
Everything else you read online is nonsense. And you need someone trusted inside your company to ensure the second trait is being adhered to.
JCW2001 commented on How not to assess a developer's ability in an interview thunderpeel2001.blogspot.... · Posted by u/JCW2001
To the writer's point, many of the questions listed are "basic skills". Maybe you know them off hand? Maybe you don't? The question is: can the candidate learn them? Is she/he willing? What is their amplitude and abilities, not some check list of "facts" you'd hear on Engineering Jeopardy?
But better, for the candidate such questions trigger their own questions:
- Do they expect me to know everything?
- Is this a conversation or an interrogation?
- Why are does it feel like they're focused more on what I don't know, and less on what I have done?
- That's a very basic question, did any of the interview team look at my code samples? Or blog posts?
- Oh, I guess education and professional growth isn't a thing here?
- And so on...
I've had interview "conversations" often enough to realize there are a lot of bad hiring [1] and bad interviewing practices. It amazes me (in a sad and disappointing sort of way) how many outfits don't realize the process is a message; that their questions are also signals to the candidates. In short, both parties are conducting an interview.
[1] During the application process do not ask for references. Asking someone you haven't met yet to hand over the contact details of trusted colleague and friends is bad form. As in, I'm not going to finish this one bad form.
"Engineering Jeopardy" -- perfect summation! And good point about companies that are very one-sided in their interview process. What message are YOU sending to the candidate by drilling them like this, for example?
Deleted Comment
Quote: "The entire system only works if AI revenue grows fast enough to outrun the obsolescence treadmill. For that to happen, Microsoft would need approximately $130 billion per year in new AI revenue, Google $100 billion, Amazon $120 billion, and Meta $70 billion. Against a current reality of $18 billion in total industry AI revenue and zero profits, that gap is not a rounding error. It is the entire bet."