Talk:HackerRank

Abandoned user draft

Please would an interested editor assess the earlier draft at User:Kanungoparth/sandbox, incorporate what is useful, blank that page as WP:STALEDRAFT, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 12:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the page

• Reason for the change: I am an employee at HackerRank. I'm requesting these edits to the page as I think the current content is somewhat dated and does not accurately describe our current company and product offerings. I tried to be as neutral as possible in the suggested wording and included sources, but if you think anything I've written is biased or lacks supporting evidence please edit/remove as necessary or ask me to provide more sources. My intent is not to spread any false or biased information but simply to modernize and add more factual detail to the page for my company.

Also - I'm not sure how to tell which specific source is causing the unreliable citations banner on the article but could you please either remove whatever the offending citation is and any related unprovable claim or let me know and I can look for a better source?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samczhr (talk • contribs) 18:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Specific text to be added or removed:

===Old text:===

HackerRank is a technology company that focuses on competitive programming challenges for both consumers and businesses. Developers compete by writing programs according to provided specifications. HackerRank's programming challenges can be solved in a variety of programming languages (including Java, C++, PHP, Python, SQL, and JavaScript) and span multiple computer science domains.

HackerRank categorizes most of their programming challenges into a number of core computer science domains, including database management, mathematics, and artificial intelligence.

When a programmer submits a solution to a programming challenge, their submission is scored on the accuracy of their output. Programmers are then ranked globally on the HackerRank leaderboard and earn badges based on their accomplishments, which is intended to drive competition among users. In addition to individual coding challenges, HackerRank also hosts contests (often referred to by HackerRank as "CodeSprints") where users compete on the same programming challenges during a set period of time and are then ranked at the conclusion of the event. HackerRank is part of the growing gamification trend within competitive computer programming. The consumer side of their website is free for coders to use.

===New text:===

HackerRank is a technology company that operates an online platform for programming challenges and technical assessments used by both individual developers and companies. HackerRank’s developer community has over 26 million users, and its enterprise platform is used by thousands of companies including LinkedIn, IBM, Atlassian, Adobe, and Stripe. Its library spans multiple computer science domains—including algorithms, databases, mathematics and artificial intelligence—and supports more than 40 programming languages such as Java, C++, PHP, Python, SQL, and JavaScript.

Participants solve problems by submitting code that is automatically compiled, executed and scored for correctness and efficiency. Results feed into global leaderboards and badge systems, and the platform periodically hosts time-bound contests, known as “CodeSprints”, in which users compete on identical tasks. HackerRank is part of the growing gamification trend within competitive computer programming. The consumer side of their website is free for coders to use. Paid plans are available for companies with a variety of technical hiring tools including custom coding tests, live interviews, candidate sourcing, and employee upskilling.

===Old text:===

==HackerRank for Work==

Their enterprise-side product, HackerRank for Work, is a subscription service that aims to help companies source, screen (CodePair), and hire engineers and other technical employees. The product is intended to allow technical recruiters to use programming challenges to test candidates on their specific programming skills and better understand their qualification for a certain role. Candidate's challenges, once submitted, are auto-scored and the results are then provided to the technical recruiter for review. In addition to screening, HackerRank also hosts programming hackathons, referred to as CodeSprints, as a way for companies to source technical candidates. HackerRank’s customers include Yahoo!, Quora, and Amazon.[citation needed]

===New text:===

Products & Services==

HackerRank offers a suite of products designed to help companies source, screen, hire, and upskill software engineers and other technical employees.

===Technical Hiring Platform===

HackerRank’s two core technical hiring products are Screen and Interview. Screen is a technical assessment tool designed to evaluate candidates’ technical and programming skills before interviews. Users, typically recruiters and hiring managers, can screen potential candidates with premade or custom timed assessments consisting of coding and multiple choice questions. Interview (previously known as CodePair) is a real-time, collaborative technical interview platform with a shared code editor and live audio and video communication. In 2025, HackerRank introduced Code Repository questions to Interview, which contain multiple files and attempt to replicate real software development work.

In 2024 HackerRank added two additional products to their hiring suite: Engage for virtual event hosting, hackathons, and talent sourcing, and SkillUp for employee upskilling and workforce skills inventorying. HackerRank has recently incorporated AI features across their product suite including AI-powered proctoring, automated interview transcripts, code quality analysis, and an AI assistant for contextual code guidance during interviews and assessments.

===Third-Party Integrations===

HackerRank integrates with a variety of third-party softwares including applicant tracking systems (ATS) like Ashby, Lever, and Greenhouse.

==Research==

HackerRank conducts and publishes research related to software engineering skills, technical hiring trends, and the capabilities of AI models in developer workflows. Its research aims to provide industry benchmarks for both employers and developers.

===Developer Skills Report===

Since 2018, HackerRank has published the Developer Skills Report, an annual survey-based study examining trends in programming languages, developer education, and hiring expectations. The report is based on responses from tens of thousands of professional developers and students worldwide as well as aggregated data from the HackerRank platform. It has been cited by industry publications for insights into in-demand skills, emerging technologies, and the state of technical hiring.

Recent editions have explored topics such as remote work adoption and the use of AI tools in development workflows.

===HackerRank ASTRA===

HackerRank ASTRA (Assessment of Software Tasks in Real-world Applications) is an evaluation framework and research initiative designed to benchmark the performance of frontier AI models on real-world software engineering tasks by measuring models’ abilities to develop new features in multi-file code projects based on text prompts. HackerRank maintains an ASTRA Leaderboard showcasing the performance of different AI models on these practical software engineering tasks, aiming to help industry practitioners evaluate the suitability of AI models for developer workflows. The ASTRA leaderboard currently contains models from OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepSeek, Google, and Meta.

References

• References supporting change: I've noted these throughout the text of my proposed changes but here is a full list of URLs -

https://www.hackerrank.com https://www.hackerrank.com/products/screen https://www.hackerrank.com/whats-new/ https://www.hackerrank.com/features/certified-assessments https://www.hackerrank.com/products/interview https://support.hackerrank.com/articles/5377881818-the-next-generation-of-hiring%3A-interview-features#code-repositories-in-interviews-3 https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/06/hackerrank-launches-codepair-to-improve-technical-interviews/ https://www.hackerrank.com/products/engage https://www.hackerrank.com/products/skillup https://www.hackerrank.com/features/integrations https://www.hackerrank.com/reports/developer-skills-report-2025 https://venturebeat.com/business/hackerrank-developer-skills-report-2019/ https://www.hrdive.com/news/messy-hiring-practices-tech-developers/744227/ https://www.hackerrank.com/ai/astra-reports https://www.hackerrank.com/ai/leaderboard https://www.hackerrank.com/blog/the-state-of-frontier-models-across-the-sdlc/ https://www.newsweek.com/openai-coding-progress-accelerates-labor-economic-upheaval-changes-predictions-2034107

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samczhr (talk • contribs) 20:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit request moved to User:Samczhr/sandbox. GoldRomean (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, regarding the tag, WP:PRNEWSWIRE definitely isn’t, I’ll look into the others later (feel free to ping me if I forget). GoldRomean (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks! Have you had a chance to look at any of the other sources? Samczhr (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, WP:INSIDER and WP:TECHCRUNCH are iffy, but look okay. I've taken out PR Newswire, I think you can remove the tag now. GoldRomean (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

For your request above, can you add WP:INLINE citations? GoldRomean (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll add the WP:INLINE citations on monday and ping you once I've done it. Samczhr (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@GoldRomean I've added the citations Samczhr (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you're going to need to turn off the diff template, because it looks like ILCs don't show on it. GoldRomean (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that, template has been removed Samczhr (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why a bunch of my citations are getting grouped under source #5 - I cited multiple different pages on the HackerRank website for different sections but in the rendered version they're all getting attributed to the first page I cited, the website homepage. Do you know what I did wrong? Samczhr (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks - I've moved the request to your sandbox here: User:Samczhr/sandbox so the headings don't mess up this page and everything's a bit easier to handle. If you don't like this, feel free to revert me and I can tag your sandbox for deletion too. I'll take a look at the references to see what's screwing them up :). GoldRomean (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Samczhr - The name of the citation <ref name="”HackerRank">{{cite web |title=HackerRank - Online Coding Tests and Technical Interviews |url=https://www.hackerrank.com/ |access-date=July 21, 2025 |website=hackerrank.com}}</ref> is "HackerRank". As a result, I don't know what you were trying to cite, but every time you use <ref name="”HackerRank" />, it will bring up the citation to the homepage, because you are using the citation named "HackerRank". If that makes sense. GoldRomean (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@GoldRomean got it, thanks! I fixed them. Also sorry I missed your last message about moving everything over to my sandbox until just now - I was confused as to why all the text had disappeared and I copied it back in from an older version and fixed the citations... Feel free to move it back over if that's best. Sorry again, can you tell it's my first time editing anything on wikipedia?... :) Samczhr (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, sorry about that, that's okay. I'm weary that all the citations in "Products & Services" are all WP:SELFPUBLISHED. I'll take a look at the others later; again, feel free to ping with reminders. Your continued civility is appreciated :). Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help here. As for the self-published sources, I looked for 3rd party sources but we unfortunately don't have a ton of recent media coverage with specific details about our products. When you're a smaller company it's hard to get any publication to write about your product unless you pay them for it... Would it be any better to cite our support docs instead of the marketing-heavy product pages? I know still self-published but maybe a bit less sales-y? Let me know what you think :) Samczhr (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know about including the section all together, which does also feel promotional-y to me. GoldRomean (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm ok fair, I will try to re-write that section later today to make it much shorter and less promotional, will go into less detail on specific product features etc. and just mention the 4 core products. That sound better? Samczhr (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@GoldRomean I just posted a rewritten Products and Services section above, shorter and with less promotional language. Please let me know what you think. Still have the same issue with self-published citations but it's going to be difficult to give any description of what our product does based on acceptable 3rd party sources as we haven't had a lot of media coverage in recent years that actually says what our product does. Understand wanting to avoid promotional language here but I do think it seems reasonable to include a description of the products and services offered in an article about a company. Let me know what you think of this edit, happy to keep working with you if it isn't enough to find a version of this that you're comfortable with. :) Samczhr (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey @GoldRomean pinging you on this :) Samczhr (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Your rewrite was much better. I get your POV but still think generally primary sources should be avoided. I've added this to my to-do list and I'll think more on it. :) Regarding "Research" section, it looks alright. I was wondering if you could shorten the first paragraph of HackerRank ASTRA considering it is cited only to primary sources. GoldRomean (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I shortened the first paragraph from 2 sentences to 1 and combined it with the second paragraph. Let me know if that version works for you. :)

Also, I do have a couple of sources I could cite for the Products and Services section that technically aren't "primary" but I'm guessing they're not much better because they're press releases written by our company and published on 3rd party services. I'm guessing these won't be helpful but figured I'd mention them just in case - let me know. Samczhr (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey @GoldRomean, another friendly ping to get your thoughts on this :) Samczhr (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, honestly, it looks much better but I'm not really sure - sorry, but I'm going to leave it to another reviewer for now :). GoldRomean (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, ok fair enough. Thanks for all your help with this :). How can I get another reviewer to take a look at this? Samczhr (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, just wait till someone gets to it in the backlog. GoldRomean (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Sorry one more question - I just noticed that last week some other editor came in and re-wrote the first two sections of the article. These re-writes are full of grammatical errors. Would you be ok with reverting these changes? Also, did you approve of my re-written copy for the introductory section of the article? If so maybe we can just replace with that? Thanks again for all your help :) Samczhr (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Greyfell makes some valid points, and you should definitely discuss first before reverting. :) GoldRomean (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Oof, sorry about the errors, that was pretty bad. The sources here are pretty flimsy and the wording still reads as too promotional. Please stick to neutral summaries of reliable sources, most or all of which should also be independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Grayfell, a couple questions. First of all, do you have specific objections to my proposed text for the introductory section? I kept basically the same sources that are already on the page now and just re-framed a bit to highlight the business side of the company. If you've got specific comments on that I'd be happy to take a crack at re-writes.

As for the research and products and services sections, I can work with you on more re-writes if the language is still too promotional but I don't think there's really anything I'll be able to do about the sources, there just isn't very much 3rd-party coverage of our product over the past few years and a lot of the old coverage is outdated. One of our primary competitors, CodeSignal has a products and services section on their wikipedia page that is primarily supported by sources from their own website, so I had hoped we could have the same. Please let me know if it is worth me trying to re-write these sections again or if there's just no version you'll be comfortable with that doesn't have 3rd-party sources.

Thanks :) Samczhr (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)