-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 962
FEATURE: Categorize questions by difficulty and random interview #20
Comments
First off, this whole idea sounds like it qould most likely require a server at some point. With that out of the way, I think generating a random interview is not exactly the most fair way to go about this for a few reasons:
Based on my above points, I have a counter-proposal to make: We can start adding a difficulty score to questions and see how the whole idea turns out. It might not be as complex and problematic as I think and we can always come back to this and use a generator to create interviews. Apart from that, we can also make some static pages that we curate for specific role descriptions and tech stacks and present questions in a nice page that could help someone land a job. That sounds way less complex and would make use of the tag system, as we could tag a question with something like TL;DR: Sounds way too complex, why don't we stick to proper tagging and curating interviews per role/positon/tech for now? Add the difficulty ratings as an extra and see if they are worth it. |
Actually this could be done with a client side script. If they clear their cookies we would lose track of progress, but it would be entirely doable client side with those storage mediums(isn't JSON great?) The parts would be:
Any modification to the storage would mean an immediate loss of progress and having to start over, but since we aren't going to be storing the results etc... etc... you can see where this train of thought is going. However @Chalarangelo hit the nail on the head: This needs curation, and people arguing over how difficult a question is leads to chaos. That kind of makes it hard, so we would need to not allow pull requets to modify them and would instead have to allow people to vote for them over time with a reaction on a github issue(so authentication is taken care of) for the question in comment and lock comments to maintainers, but allow public to react(if possible) Otherwise this will require a server. It should be doable with the abilities that Github provides, but would mean manual labor time, or a server to aggregate and collate based on an algorithm |
This pretty much sums it all up. There is definitely going to be a lot of problems with deciding which questions goes where in terms of difficulty. For now, we can just generate 10 random questions just for fun. Real interviews could come into play later down the line when we have over 100questions and someone to maintain and sort them properly. |
@Chalarangelo I like the idea about static pages designed for specific job roles. But, as you already said, this is not something that is urgent so we can postpone this feature for some time(I will have time over the summer so I could implement something like that). |
I am closing this, as discussed above there is still no need for this as it would be very hard to maintain. The page with random questions will be implemented soon. 😄 |
Currently, we have around 30 questions. In order to implement difficulty category we would need a bit more, lets say 50+.
This issue represents mixture of my and @atomiks ideas.
We would like to implement some sort of real interview. When a user presses a button on a landing page he is redirected to a custom page where he is welcome with ~10 random questions. The user should be able to select dificulty
junior
,medior
,senior
for questions. We do not have Duolingo algorithms but @atomiks suggested that after each question user would press one of the 3 buttons:Each button would carry different
weight
and at the end of interview, user could see his score (summ of all weights).In order to make this interview, we would need to categorize questions by difficulty too. Would such thing be hard to maintain? Do we need categories for random interview(junior, sentior etc.) or we should have one single category?
We could also display small tag on question's card based on question difficulty on our main page.
What are your opinions on this one?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: