I don't work at Google, so I cannot speak for them. My company does have studies and experiments around interviewing, but again, the metric they use for success is "inclined rate" e.g. doing ABC leads to x% increase in inclined rate. I haven't seen any study linking interview outcomes with on the job performance e.g. yearly performance rating or promotions. In fact many people have requested this data over the years.

> If you haven't seen any data then you just have a set of anecdotes, so your position is very weak. I have seen the data, but a person like you who is convinced it work wont believe me of course.

This comment seems quite rude, and again, it misrepresents my position. I didn't say LC style interviews don't work, I'm saying that I don't know, because I have seen no data to prove that they work better or worse than other alternatives.

Also the landscape has change, and what might have worked 5 or 10 years might not anymore. Tech interviewing has "professionalized" in a Goodhart's Law-esque fashion. People have become very dedicated to game the process, which might affect the quality of the outcomes. But just to be clear again, I want to see evidence one way or another.

Basically, the same depth of evidence (maybe less) that saturated fat was causing all this heart disease, so let’s keep everyone on very low fat diets.

I just remained unconvinced that we know anything at this point. Google is allowed to do what they’re going to do and to do their own studies and make their own decisions based on that data.

However, that study is not a normal lock for the rest of the world and people SHOULD be questioning it, even with anecdotal evidence, at least till we have enough studies proving their point in different situations and companies.