interviewer

Only point of the idiotic BigO/whiteboard kind of interviews is to make the interviewer feel good about himself/herself.

If you put it on your resume, its fair game for the interviewer to ask about it.

To reduce the pressure the interviewer could leave the room for 10 mins while you code something.

Thus, companies try to come up with processes and metrics that (theoretically) remove the interviewer skill from the equation.

It was fun, not stressful in any way, and the interviewer even taught me some things along the way!

In reality, the interviewer looks at you as a person, and has their own biases.

Instead of strictly evaluating and overlooking, my interviewer worked through the problem with me and even wrote part of the code.

Developers should realise that when you come to an interview the interviewer isn't looking to dismiss you because you can't recite Knuth.

I keep seeing more and more dis-associative non-communication being presented where the interviewer attempts to do less and less.

The interviewer on the phone could see where I was typing and could highlight stuff etc.

If you were able to explain your 'cheated' solution to someone and they could reliably cheat the interviewer, I'd say you..

It seems as part of the take home that you spend 45 minutes discussing your implementation and defending your choices in person with the interviewer.

Then the interviewer suggested that I must have encountered it previously, even after seeing me "showing my work" on a whiteboard.

Unfortunately we decided to hire another candidate.” or “You had trouble connecting with the interviewer.

Recruiting personnel in human resources are not in a position to evaluate the merits of the interview and it might help if this person wrote the feedback from the perspective of the interviewer and not as a collective "we".