面试官问面向对象特点_最好的面试官有什么共同点？

面试官问面向对象特点

by Aline Lerner

通过艾琳·勒纳(Aline Lerner)

最好的面试官有什么共同点？ 我们查看了成千上万的真实访谈以找出答案。 (What do the best interviewers have in common? We looked at thousands of real interviews to find out.)

At interviewing.io, we’ve analyzed and written about what makes a good interview from the perspective of an interviewee. But, despite the inherent power imbalance, interviewing is a two-way street.

在受访网站io上 ，我们从受访者的角度分析并撰写了有关进行良好采访的内容。 但是，尽管存在内在的权力失衡，面试还是一条两条路。

I wrote a while ago about how, in this market, recruiting isn’t about vetting as much as it is about selling. Not engaging candidates in an hour-long interview is a woefully missed opportunity.

我前一阵子写过关于招聘在这个市场上的方式并不仅仅是在审查销售方面 。 没有让候选人参加长达一个小时的面试，这是一个非常可惜的机会。

Solving interview questions is a learned skill that takes practice. So, too, is the other side of the table. Being a good interviewer takes time, effort, and the willingness to engage meaningfully with the other person.

解决面试问题是一项需要实践的学习技能。 桌子的另一边也是如此。 成为一名优秀的面试官需要花费时间，精力和与他人进行有意义交流的意愿。

Everyone has strong opinions about what makes someone a good interviewer. So instead of waxing philosophy, we’ll answer the following questions, and more, with data:

每个人对于使某人成为优秀面试官都有强烈的意见。 因此，我们将用数据回答以下问题以及更多其他问题，而不是提出哲学问题：

• Does it matter how strong of an engineering brand your company has?
  贵公司的工程品牌的实力有多重要？
• Do the questions you ask actually help get candidates excited?
  您提出的问题是否真的有助于使应聘者兴奋？
• How important is it to give good hints to your candidate?
  给你的候选人好提示有多重要？
• How much should you talk about yourself?
  你应该谈谈自己多少？
• Is it true that, at the end of the day, what you say is less important than how you make people feel?[1]
  归根结底，您说的话比让人们的感觉重要吗？[1]

Before I delve into our findings, I’ll say a few words about interviewing.io and the data we collect.

在深入研究结果之前，我会先谈一谈“采访” io和我们收集的数据。

设置 (The setup)

interviewing.io is an anonymous technical interviewing platform. People can practice technical interviewing anonymously. If things go well, they can unlock real (still anonymous) interviews with companies like Lyft, Twitch, Quora, and more.

面试.io是一个匿名的技术面试平台。 人们可以匿名练习技术面试。 如果一切顺利，他们可以与Lyft，Twitch，Quora等公司进行真实(仍然匿名)的采访。

Both practice and real interviews take place within the interviewing.io ecosystem. We’re able to collect quite a bit of data and analyze it to better understand technical interviewing.

实际采访和实际采访都在visiting.io生态系统内进行。 我们能够收集大量数据并进行分析，以更好地了解技术面试。

One of the most important pieces of data we collect is feedback from both parties about how they thought the interview went and what they thought of each other.

我们收集的最重要的数据之一是双方的反馈意见，即他们认为采访进行得如何以及彼此的想法。

If you’re curious, you can see the feedback forms for interviewers and interviewees below.

如果您有好奇心，可以在下面查看针对面试官和受访者的反馈表。

In this article, we’ll analyze feedback and outcomes of thousands of real interviews to figure out what the best interviewers have in common.

在本文中，我们将分析成千上万次真实访谈的反馈和结果，以找出最佳面试官的共同点。

Before we dive in, let’s first put the value of a good interviewer in context by looking at the impact of a company’s brand on the outcome. After all, if brand matters a lot, then being a good interviewer might not be that important.

在深入探讨之前，让我们首先通过考察公司品牌对结果的影响，来介绍一名优秀面试官的价值。 毕竟，如果品牌很重要，那么成为一个好的面试官可能并不那么重要。

品牌实力 (Brand strength)

So, does brand really matter for interview outcomes?

那么，品牌对面试结果真的重要吗？

One caveat before we get into the data: every interview on the platform is user-initiated. Once you unlock our jobs portal (you have to do really well in practice interviews to do so), you decide who you talk to. Our users are predisposed to move forward because they’ve chosen the company in the first place. Many of the companies we work with have pretty strong brands, but we also work with small, up-and-coming startups.

在获取数据之前，请注意以下几点：平台上的每个采访都是由用户发起的。 解锁我们的工作门户后(您必须在实践面试中做得非常好)，您才能决定与谁交谈。 我们的用户倾向于前进，因为他们首先选择了公司。 与我们合作的许多公司都拥有非常强大的品牌，但我们也与新兴的小型初创公司合作。

To quantify brand strength, we used three different measures:

为了量化品牌实力，我们使用了三种不同的衡量标准：

• Klout Score (yes, that still exists)

  Klout得分 (是的，仍然存在)

• Mattermark Mindshare Score

  Mattermark Mindshare得分

• Glassdoor (under general reviews).[2]

  Glassdoor (正在接受一般审查)。[2]

The impact of interview outcomes relative to brand strength was not statistically significant. We found that brand strength didn’t matter at all when it came to whether the candidate wanted to move forward or how excited the candidate was to work at the company.

访谈结果相对于品牌实力的影响在统计学上不显着。 我们发现，对于应聘者是否想要前进还是应聘者在公司工作有多兴奋，品牌实力根本不重要 。

This was a bit surprising, so I decided to dig deeper.

这有点令人惊讶，所以我决定更深入地研究。

Maybe brand strength doesn’t matter overall but matters when the interviewer or the questions they asked aren’t highly rated? In other words, can brand buttress less-than-stellar interviewers?

也许品牌实力并不重要，但是当面试官或他们提出的问题没有得到高度评价时，这很重要吗？ 换句话说，品牌支持者可以不如明星采访者吗？

Not so, according to our data.

根据我们的数据，事实并非如此。

Brand didn’t matter even when you corrected for interviewer quality. Here’s the breakdown of the top 10 best-rated companies on our platform:

即使您对访调员的素质进行了修正，品牌也没有关系。 以下是我们平台上排名前10名的公司的细分：

• 5 have no brand to speak of
  5没有品牌可言

• 3 are mid-sized YC companies that command respect in Bay Area circles but are not universally recognizable

  3家中型YC公司在海湾地区赢得了尊重，但并没有得到普遍认可

• 2 have anything close to household name status
  2具有与姓氏状态相似的任何内容

So, what’s the takeaway here?

那么，这里的要点是什么？

While brand likely matters for getting candidates in the door, once they’re in, no matter how well-branded you are, they’re yours to lose.

虽然品牌可能对吸引候选人入场很重要，但一旦候选人进入，无论您的品牌多么好，他们都是输给您的人。

选择问题 (Choosing the question)

If brand doesn’t matter once you’ve actually gotten a candidate in the door, then what does? Turns out, the questions you ask matter a TON.

如果一旦您真正找到了候选人，品牌就没关系了，那又有什么用呢？ 事实证明，您提出的问题很重要。

One of the questions we ask candidates is how good the question(s) they got asked were.

我们向候选人提出的问题之一是他们被问到的问题有多好。

Question quality was extremely significant (p < 0.002 with an effect size of 1.25) when it came to whether the candidate wanted to move forward with the company. This held both when candidates did well and when they did poorly.

当谈到候选人是否想与公司一起前进时， 问题质量非常重要 (p <0.002，影响大小为1.2 5)。 当候选人表现良好或表现不佳时，这种情况都会持续 。

Here’s what the candidates had to say about the best and worst-rated questions on the platform:

关于平台上最佳和最差评分的问题，候选人必须说的是：

好的 (The good)

I liked the fact that questions were building on top of each other so that previous work was not wasted and finding ways to improve on the given solution.

我喜欢这样一个事实，即问题是相互重叠的，这样就不会浪费以前的工作，而是寻找改进给定解决方案的方法。

Always nice to get questions that are more than just plain algorithms.

总是能得到不仅仅是普通算法的问题。

Really good asking of a classic question, opened my mind up to edge cases and considerations that I never contemplated the couple of times I’ve been exposed to the internals of this data structure.

确实很好地提出了一个经典问题，这使我得以了解一些极端的案例和考虑因素，而这是我几次从未接触过此数据结构内部的事情。

This was the longest interviewing.io interview I have ever done, and it is also the most enjoyable one! I really like how we started with a simple data structure and implemented algorithms on top of it. It felt like working on a simple small-scale project and was fun.

这是我做过的最长的面试.io面试，也是最愉快的一次！ 我真的很喜欢我们如何从一个简单的数据结构开始并在其之上实现算法。 感觉就像在做一个简单的小型项目，很有趣。

He chose an interesting and challenging interview problem that made me feel like I was learning while I was solving it. I can’t think of any improvements. He would be great to work with.

他选择了一个有趣且具有挑战性的面试问题，这让我觉得自己在解决问题时正在学习。 我想不出任何改善。 他将很高兴与他合作。

I liked the question — it takes a relatively simple algorithms problem (build and traverse a tree) and adds some depth. I also liked that the interviewer connected the problem to a real product at [Redacted] which made it feel like less like a toy problem and more like a pared-down version of a real problem.

我喜欢这个问题-它需要一个相对简单的算法问题(构建和遍历一棵树)并增加一些深度。 我还喜欢采访者将该问题与[Redacted]上的真实产品联系起来，使它看起来不像玩具问题，而更像是对实际问题的简化版本。

This is my favorite question that I’ve encountered on this site. it was one of the only ones that seem like it had actual real-life applicability and was drawn from a real (or potentially real) business challenge. And it also nicely wove in challenges like complexity, efficiency, and blocking.

这是我在此站点上遇到的最喜欢的问题。 它是仅有的几处似乎具有实际的实际适用性并且是从真实(或潜在真实)业务挑战中汲取的。 而且它还很好地克服了复杂性，效率和阻塞之类的挑战。

不好 (The bad)

Question wasn’t straightforward and it required a lot of thinking/understanding since functions/data structures weren’t defined until a lot later. [Redacted] is definitely a cool company to work for, but some form of structure in interviews would have been a lot more helpful. Spent a long time figuring out what the question is even asking, and interviewer was not language-agnostic.

问题并非直截了当，而且还需要很多思考/理解，因为直到很多时候才定义函数/数据结构。 [已编辑]绝对是一家很不错的公司，但是采访中的某种形式的结构本来会更有帮助。 花了很长时间弄清楚这个问题甚至在问什么，而且面试官对语言并不了解。

I was expecting a more technical/design question that showcases the ability to think about a problem. Having a domain-specific question (regex) limits the ability to show one’s problem-solving skills. I am sure with enough research one could come up with a beautiful regex expression but unless this is something one does often, I don’t think it [makes for] a very good assessment.

我期待一个更具技术性/设计性的问题，展现出思考问题的能力。 具有特定领域的问题(regex)限制了显示个人解决问题能力的能力。 我敢肯定，经过足够的研究，可以得出一个漂亮的正则表达式表达式，但是除非经常这样做，否则我认为它并不能做出很好的评估。

This is not a good general interview question. A good interview question should have more than one solution with simplified constraints.

这不是一个很好的一般面试问题。 一个好的面试问题应该有多个简化约束的解决方案。

一个好的面试问题的剖析 (Anatomy of a good interview question)

1. Layer complexity (including asking a warmup)
   图层复杂度(包括询问热身)
2. No trivia
   没有琐事
3. Real-world components/relevance to the company’s work are preferable to textbook algorithmic problems
   现实世界中的组件/与公司工作的相关性比教科书中的算法问题更可取
4. If you ask a classic algorithmic question, bring some nuance and depth to the table. If you can teach the interviewee something interesting in the process, even better!
   如果您提出经典的算法问题，请在表格上加入一些细微差别和深度。 如果您可以在此过程中教受访者一些有趣的事情，那就更好了！

问问题 (Asking the question)

We also ask candidates how helpful their interviewer was in guiding them to the solution. Providing well-timed hints that get them out of the weeds without giving away too much is a delicate art. How much does it matter?

我们还询问候选人，他们的面试官在指导他们解决方案方面有多大帮助。 提供适时的提示，使它们摆脱杂草而又不浪费太多，是一门精致的艺术。 有多少关系？

As it turns out, being able to do this well matters a ton.

事实证明，能够做到这一点很重要。

Being good at providing hints was extremely significant (p < 0.00001 with an effect size of 2.95) when it came to whether the candidate wanted to move forward with the company. As before, we corrected for whether the interview went well.

谈到候选人是否想与同伴一起前进时， 善于提供提示非常重要 (p <0.00001，影响大小为2.9 5) 。 和以前一样，我们纠正了采访是否顺利。

Hint quality may be a specific instance of something bigger, though it’s hard to quantify. It turns something adversarial into a collaborative exercise that leaves both people in a better place than where they started.[3]

提示质量可能是更大的特定实例，尽管很难量化。 它将对抗性的东西变成了一种协作练习，使双方都在比他们开始时更好的地方。[3]

If you can’t do that every time, then at the very least, be present and engaged during the interview. No matter what the devil on your shoulder tells you, no good will ever come of opening Reddit in another tab.[4]

如果您不能每次都这样做，那么至少要在面试中表现出来并参与其中。 不管您肩膀上的魔鬼告诉您什么，在另一个选项卡中打开Reddit都不会有好处。[4]

One of the most memorable, pithy conversations I ever had about interviewing was with a seasoned engineer. He spent years as a senior software architect at a huge tech company before going back to what he’d always liked, writing code. He’d conducted a lot of interviews over a career spanning several decades. After trying out several styles, what he settled on was elegant, simple, and satisfying. According to him, the purpose of any interview is to “see if we can be smart together.”

我曾经与一位经验丰富的工程师进行过最难忘，最令人难忘的谈话。 在回到自己一直喜欢的代码编写之前，他在一家大型科技公司担任了多年的高级软件架构师。 在几十年的职业生涯中，他进行了很多采访。 在尝试了几种样式之后，他选择了优雅，简单和令人满意的解决方案。 他说，任何面试的目的都是“看看我们是否可以一起聪明”。

I like that so much, and it’s advice I repeat whenever anyone will listen.

我非常喜欢，这是我建议只要有人听的时候再说一遍。

Here’s what candidates thought of their interviewers in regards to helpfulness and engagement:

以下是候选人在帮助和参与方面对面试官的看法：

好的 (The good)

I liked that you laid out the structure of the interview at the outset and mentioned that the first question did not have any tricks. That helped set the pace of the interview so I didn’t spend an inordinate amount of time on the first one.

我喜欢您在一开始就安排了采访的结构，并提到第一个问题没有任何技巧。 这有助于设定面试的进度，因此我没有花太多时间在第一次面试上。

The interview wasn’t easy, but it was really fun. It felt more like making a design discussion with a colleague than an interview. I think the question was designed/prepared to fill the 45 minute slot perfectly.

面试并不容易，但确实很有趣。 与面试相比，这更像是与同事进行设计讨论。 我认为问题是为完全填补45分钟的空缺而设计/准备的。

I’m impressed by how quickly he identified the issue (typo) in my hash computation code and how gently he led me to locating it myself with two very high-level hints (“what other tests cases would you try?” and “would your code always work if you look for the the pattern that’s just there at the beginning of the string?”). Great job!

他在我的哈希计算代码中很快发现问题(类型)，以及他如何轻率地引导我自己找到两个非常高级的提示(“您还会尝试其他测试案例？”和“会怎样)，给我留下了深刻的印象。如果您要寻找字符串开头处的模式，您的代码将始终有效。”)。 很好！

He never corrected me, instead asked questions and for me to elaborate in areas where I was incorrect — I very much appreciate this.

他从不纠正我，而是提出问题，并让我详细说明我不正确的地方-我非常感谢。

The question seemed very overwhelming at first but the interviewer was good at helping to break it down into smaller problems and suggest we focus on one of those first.

起初，这个问题似乎很让人难以理解，但访问员擅长将其分解为较小的问题，建议我们重点关注第一个问题。

不好 (The bad)

[It] was a little nerve-wracking hearing you yawn while I was coding.

听到您在我编码时打哈欠，这有点令人不安。

What I found much more difficult about this interview was the lack of back and forth as I went along, even if it was simple affirmation that “yes, that code you just wrote looks good”. There were times when it seemed like I was the only one who had talked in the past five minutes (I’m sure that’s an exaggeration). This made it feel much more like a performance than like a collaboration, and my heart was racing at the end as a result.

我发现这次面试更加困难的是，尽管我只是简单地肯定“是的，您刚刚编写的代码看起来不错”，但我一直缺乏来回的机会。 有时候，我似乎是过去五分钟中唯一的一个说话的人(我敢肯定那是夸张的)。 这让我觉得自己更像是一场表演，而不是一场合作，结果我的心跳加速了。

While the question was very straightforward, and [he] was likely looking for me to blow through it with no prompting whatsoever in order to consider moving forward in an interview process, it would have been helpful to get a discussion or even mild hinting from him when I was obviously stuck thinking about an approach… While I did get to the answer in the end, having a conversation about it would have made it feel more like a journey and learning experience. That would have also been a strong demonstration of the collaborative culture that exists while working with teams of people at a tech company, and would have sold me more vis-a-vis my excitement level.

尽管问题很简单，[他]可能希望我在不提出任何提示的情况下提出问题，以便考虑在面试过程中取得进展，但从他那里进行讨论甚至是温和暗示可能会有所帮助当我明显地被一种方法所困扰时……尽管我最终找到了答案，但与之交谈可以使它更像是一次旅程和学习经历。 那也将是对与一家技术公司的团队合作时所存在的协作文化的有力证明，并且相对于我的兴奋程度，它还能卖给我更多。

If an interview is set to 45 minutes, the questions should fit this time frame, because people plan accordingly. I think that if you plan to have a longer interview you should notify the interviewee beforehand, so he can be ready for it.

如果将采访时间设置为45分钟，那么问题应该适合此时间范围，因为人们会相应地进行计划。 我认为，如果您打算进行更长的采访，则应事先通知受访者，这样他就可以准备好了。

One issue I had with the question though is what exactly he was trying to evaluate from me with the question. At points we talking about very nitty-gritty details about python linked list or array iteration, but it was unclear at any point if that was what he was judging me on. I think in the future he could outline at the beginning what exactly he was looking for with the problem in order to keep the conversation focused and ensure he is well calibrated judging candidates.

我对这个问题的一个问题是，他到底想从我那里对这个问题进行评估。 在某些时候，我们谈论的是关于python链表或数组迭代的非常具体的细节，但是目前尚不清楚这是否是他在评价我的。 我认为，将来他可以在开始时概述问题的确切答案，以保持对话的重点并确保他对候选人进行充分的校准。

Try to be more familiar with all the possible solutions to the problem you choose to pose to the candidate. Try to work on communicating more clearly with the candidate.

尝试更加熟悉针对您提出给候选人的问题的所有可能解决方案。 尝试与候选人进行更清晰的沟通。

良好面试的剖析 (Anatomy of a good interview)

1. Set expectations, and control timing/pacing
   设定期望并控制时间/步调
2. Be engaged!
   订婚！
3. Familiarity with the problem and its associated rabbit holes/garden paths
   熟悉问题及其相关的兔子洞/花园路径
4. Good balance of hints and letting candidate think
   提示和求职者之间保持良好的平衡
5. Turn the interview into a collaborative exercise where both people are free to be smart together
   将面试变成一项协作练习，使两个人都可以自由地一起聪明

讲故事的艺术……以及成为人类的重要性 (The art of storytelling… and the importance of being human)

Beyond choosing and crafting good questions and being engaged, what else do top-rated interviewers have in common?

除了选择和精心设计好问题并与他人互动之外，顶级访谈员还有哪些共同点？

The pervasive common thread I noticed was hard to quantify. But it dovetails with being engaged and creating a collaborative experience. It’s turning a dehumanizing process into an organic experience between two capable, thinking humans.

我注意到的普遍的通用线程很难量化。 但这与参与和创造协作体验相吻合。 它正在将非人性化的过程变成两个有能力，有思想的人之间的有机体验。

That often means revealing something real about yourself and telling a story. It can be sharing a bit about the company and why, out of all the places you could have landed, you ended up there. Or some aspect of the company’s mission that resonated with you. Or how the projects you’ve worked on tie into your own, personal goals.

这通常意味着揭示真实的自己并讲故事。 可能会分享有关该公司的一些信息，以及为什么在所有本可以降落的地方中却最终落在那里。 或公司使命的某些方面引起您的共鸣。 或者您从事的项目如何与您自己的个人目标联系在一起。

好的 (The good)

I like the interview format, in particular how it was primarily a discussion about cool tech, as well as an honest description of the company… the discussion section was valuable, and may be a better gauge of fit anyway. It’s nice to see a company which places value on that

我喜欢采访形式，尤其是主要是关于酷技术的讨论以及对公司的诚实描述……讨论部分非常有价值，无论如何它可能是一个更好的衡量标准。 很高兴看到一家公司对此给予了重视

The interviewer was helpful throughout the interview. He didn’t mind any questions on their company’s internal technology decisions, or how it’s structured. I liked that the interviewer gave me a good insight of how the company functions.

面试官在整个面试过程中都很有帮助。 他不介意他们公司内部技术决策或结构的任何问题。 我喜欢面试官让我很好地了解了公司的运作方式。

Extremely kind and very generous with explaining everything they do at [redacted]. Really interested in the technical challenges they’re working on. Great!

非常善良，非常慷慨地解释[编辑]所做的一切。 对他们正在研究的技术挑战非常感兴趣。 大！

Interesting questions but the most valuable and interesting thing were the insights he gave me about [redacted]. He sounded very passionate about engineering in general, particularly about the challenges they are facing at [redacted]. Would love to work with him.

有趣的问题，但最有价值和最有趣的事情是他给我的有关[已编辑]的见解。 他对整体工程学充满热情，尤其是对他们[已编辑]面临的挑战充满热情。 很想和他一起工作。

不好 (The bad)

[A] little bit of friendly banter (even if it’s just “how are you doing”?) at the very beginning of the interview would probably help a bit with keeping the candidate calm and comfortable.

在面试开始时一点点友好的开玩笑(即使只是“你好吗”？)可能会有助于保持候选人的冷静和舒适。

I thought the interview was very impersonal, [and] I could not get a good read on the goal or mission of the company.

我以为面试是非个人化的，并且[我]无法很好地了解公司的目标或使命。

One of the most genuine, human things you can do is give people immediate, actionable feedback.

您可以做的最真实，最人性化的事情之一就是给人们即时，可行的反馈 。

After each interview, we ask interviewees if they’d want to work with their interviewer. There’s a very statistically significant relationship (p < 0.00005)[5] between whether people think they did well and whether they’d want to work with the interviewer. When people think they did poorly, they may be a lot less likely to want to work with you and, by extension, your company.

每次面试后，我们都会询问受访者是否想与他们的面试官一起工作。 人们是否认为自己做得很好以及是否愿意与面试官合作，在统计上有非常显着的关系(p <0.00005)[5]。 当人们认为自己做得不好时，他们可能不太愿意与您合作，甚至与您的公司合作。

How can one mitigate these losses? Give positive, actionable feedback as soon as possible! This way, people don’t go through the self-flagellation gauntlet that happens after a perceived poor performance, followed by the inevitable rationalization that they didn’t want to work there anyway.

如何减轻这些损失？ 尽快给出积极，可行的反馈！ 这样，人们就不会经历那种自认为表现不佳之后发生的自我鞭flag的冲击，而不可避免的是他们不想在那儿工作的理性化。

如何成为人 (How to be human)

1. Talk about what your company does, and what about it appealed to you and made you want to join
   谈论您的公司做什么，以及它对您有什么吸引力并让您想加入
2. Talk about what you’re currently working on and how it fits in with what you’re passionate about
   谈论您当前正在从事的工作，以及它如何与您热衷的工作相适应
3. Give immediate, positive feedback
   立即给出积极的反馈
4. And, you know, be friendly. A little bit of warmth can go a long way.
   而且，要友好。 一点点温暖可以走很长一段路。

成为更好的面试官 (Becoming a better interviewer)

Interviewing people is hard. It’s hard to come up with good questions. It’s hard to give a good interview. And it’s especially hard to be human in a never-ending parade of interviews.

面试人很难。 很难提出好问题。 很难进行良好的采访。 在无休止的采访队伍中成为人类是特别困难的。

But being a good interviewer is important. While your company’s brand will get people in the door, once they’ve reached the technical interview, the playing field is level. You cannot use your brand as a crutch to mask poor questions or a lack of engagement.

但是，成为一名优秀的面试官很重要。 虽然您公司的品牌会吸引人们，但一旦他们到达技术面试阶段，竞争环境就会变得公平。 您不能将您的品牌用作掩盖不良问题或缺乏参与的拐杖。

A good interview can elevate a potentially cold, transactional interaction into something genuine. It can be the selling point that gets great engineers to work for you, whether you’re a household name or a new startup.

良好的面试可以将潜在的冷淡的交易互动提升为真实的事物。 无论您是家喻户晓的公司还是新成立的初创公司，它都可以成为让优秀工程师为您工作的卖点。

Given how important it is to do interviews well, what are some things you can do to get better right away?

考虑到做好面试的重要性，您可以立即采取哪些措施来改善自己的状况呢？

To come up with good, original questions, have your team document interesting problems. Every time someone solves a problem they think is interesting, no matter how small, they jot it down in a shared doc. These notes don’t have to be fleshed out, but they can be the seeds for unique interview questions that give candidates insight into the day-to-day. Turning these disjointed seeds into questions takes thought and effort, but the payoff can be huge.

要提出好的原始问题，请您的团队记录有趣的问题。 每当有人解决问题时，他们认为有趣的事情，无论大小如何，都将其记录在共享文档中。 这些笔记并不需要充实，但是它们可以成为独特面试问题的种子，这些问题可以使求职者了解日常情况。 将这些脱节的种子变成问题需要花费大量的精力和精力，但回报可能是巨大的。

Another thing you can do to get actionable feedback is to get on interviewing.io as an interviewer. No one will know who you are or which company you represent in our double-blind practice pool. This gives you unbiased feedback on your question quality, how excited people would be to work with you, how good you are at guiding people, and more. It’s also a great way to go beyond your team and try out new questions on a very engaged, high-quality user base. You’ll also get replays of your interviews so you can figure out what you need to do better next time.

要获得切实可行的反馈，您可以做的另一件事是作为一名面试官开始访问interviewing.io。 在我们的双盲练习池中，没人会知道您是谁或您代表的公司。 这样可以为您提供关于问题质量的公正反馈，人们与您合作的热情如何，您在指导人们方面的表现如何，等等。 这也是超越团队成员并在高度参与的高质量用户基础上尝试新问题的好方法。 您还将获得采访的重播，以便下次确定需要做的事情。

[1] “People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” -Maya Angelou

[1]“人们会忘记您说的话，人们会忘记您的所作所为，但人们永远不会忘记您让他们感到如何。” -玛雅·安杰卢(Maya Angelou)

[2] It’s important to call out that brand and engineering brand can diverge wildly. For instance, Target has a strong brand overall but probably not the best engineering brand (sorry). Heap, on the other hand, is one of the better-respected places to work among engineers, but it doesn’t have a huge overall brand. Both the Klout and Mattermark Mindshare scores aren’t terrible for quantifying brand strength, but they’re not amazing at engineering brand strength (they’re high for Target and low for Heap). The Glassdoor score is a bit better because reviewers tend to skew engineering-heavy, but it’s still not that great of a measure. So, if anyone has a better way to quantify this stuff, let me know. If I were doing it, I’d probably look at GitHub repos of the company and its employees, who their investors are, and so on and so forth. But that’s a project that’s out of scope for this post.

[2]重要的是要指出品牌和工程品牌可以大相径庭。 例如，Target总体上拥有强大的品牌，但可能不是最佳的工程品牌(对不起)。 另一方面，Heap是工程师中最受推崇的工作场所之一，但它没有一个庞大的整体品牌。 Klout和Mattermark Mindshare分数对于量化品牌强度并不可怕，但在工程品牌强度方面并不令人惊讶(它们对Target而言较高，而对于Heap而言较低)。 Glassdoor分数要好一些，因为审阅者倾向于歪曲大量的工程设计，但仍然不是一个很好的衡量标准。 因此，如果有人有更好的方法来量化这些东西，请告诉我。 如果这样做的话，我可能会看一下该公司及其员工的GitHub存储库，他们的投资者是谁等等。 但这是一个超出本文范围的项目。

[3] If you’re familiar with Dan Savage’s campsite rule for relationships, I think there should be a similar for interviewing… leave your candidates in better shape than when you found them.

[3]如果您熟悉丹·萨维奇(Dan Savage)关于人际关系的营地规则 ，我认为面试应该有类似的方式……让候选人的处境比发现他们时要好。

[4] Let us save you the time: Trump is bad, dogs are cute, someone ate something.

[4]让我们节省您的时间：特朗普不好，狗很可爱，有人吃了东西。

[5] This time with even more significance!

[5]这次具有更大的意义！

翻译自: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/what-do-the-best-interviewers-have-in-common-8e4e8067dbd/

面试官问面向对象特点