Bah Humbug @ websites that make top ___ lists and then break it up onto two or more pages.

I'd like to see "10 Ten Unnessicary Internet Top 10 Lists"

@Hawk07: Seconded.

Re: Don't ask, Don't tell - When I was assisting in interviewing for our company, I would occasionally throw out the oddball question like the question about the lobby. The point of the question isn't to weird out the candidate, it's to see how quickly they can adjust to a curveball and provide a response. If a candidate sits there slack-jawed and going, "Ummmmm..." for about 30 seconds, it's a mark against them. If they give any sort of response, such as a clarification or a spin or the suggested "What I think you're really trying to ask is..." it's a mark in their favor. I don't particularly care what the response is, I just want them to respond in a work-appropriate manner that says, "I can deal with customers who are being a pain."

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion on Dollar Cost Advertising. It seems to me that DCA is a way of managing risk. Maybe overall on average it doesn't give as high a rate of return as just buying all your stock at once, but it's like if you have 100,000 dollars, and there are two bets you can make:
bet1:
50% win $21,000
50% lose $20,000

bet2:
30% win $215,000
70% lose $90,000

so your predicted outcome for bet1 is $500, and for bet2 it's gaining $15,000. If you could make this bet an infinite number of times, you're better off going with bet2. If you can make it only once, you need to think real hard about whether you can take a 70% chance that you are going to lose most of your money.

Re: Don't ask, don't tell -- I got asked more illegal questions when I interviewed at law firms than any time else in my LIFE.

@AdmiralKit: do you have evidence that people that give an answer quickly perform better? if not, your company is opening themselves up to hiring lawsuits.

the main concern i have is that if a customer comes in and throws a curve ball that isn't at all related to the job, then there is no reason he/she should need to be able to field those questions and quickly.

@forever_knight: Given the nature of the work that we do (and I'd prefer not to go into, since I like my job), I have plenty of anecdotal evidence that the people who can think quicker on their feet can do a better job. However, that only is a small factor into the decision; if someone has superb skills in the areas that we're hiring for and stumbles on the curveball question, they'll win out over people who handle the curveball but stumble on the technical issues. Odd questions really come into play when there are two well-qualified applicants of equal skill levels. Someone who can think quickly on their feet and solve the issue will generally leave our customers more satisfied than someone who can solve the problem but only after more time and effort. Both of them will do better than someone who doesn't have the knowledge and experience to do the jobs, either.

@AdmiralKit: i'm sure i don't have to tell you that anecdotal evidence doesn't hold much weight in a lawsuit.

all it takes is one potential applicant to feel discriminated against and they will come with their lawyers asking for the evidence and reason why he/she wasn't hired over the other person.

Re: dollar-cost averaging. This is only true if you have the psychological fortitude to plow all your money into the market today and watch it lose 50% of its value tomorrow without panic selling. If you're the kind of person who is likely to try and "cut your losses" by selling in a down market, dollar-cost averaging is better because it provides a psychological hedge against market decline.

@forever_knight: I know that anecdotal evidence doesn't hold much weight. What it does weigh into, however, is that there are non-quantitative values that weigh into selecting an employee from a pool of applicants. If I ask them what they think of the decor in the lobby, I'm hard-pressed to see where they can claim discrimination based upon that. I never ask anything that has any potential overtones or anything that goes anywhere close to any legal boundaries (no politics, religion, health/medical, age, race, etc).

In the end, all decisions get backed up with the force of the opinion of all people present in the interview. Each one types up an opinion of the candidate and whether we would recommend them for hiring or not. Quite frankly, I think the timid approach recommended by those afraid of lawsuits is ridiculous. I know what I'm allowed to ask and not to ask, I know what constitutes a legal basis for discrimination. Randomly asking someone about their opinion of the lobby (my usual choice) doesn't come anywhere close to that. If they want evidence, they can have evidence, as the process is well documented. I think that suggesting that an odd question to get a different perspective would be a potential liability is a fairly ridiculous standpoint. If they're going to sue for discrimination, asking someone what they liked most about our facility isn't going to be worth much.