@yeputons: Your "discussing assumptions" response would put you in my follow-up interview bucket! After all, the purpose of an interview is to get a total picture of the candidate, not just "can they talk a good game", or "can they code" but also "can they negotiate expectations and personalities" and will they seek clarity when things are not clear - as they often are not!

I think it's naive to expect or ask to get paid for a take home task that is part of the interview process. Consider the alternatives... they make it a "live task" and you are allowed 2 hours in a call to complete the work. You'll spend the same two hours, but under the pressure of being watched and timeboxed with the possibly demoralizing result of being cut short due to non-progress.

@Steve that you used the word "slowness" is the point. I wrote "slowness - (all other things being equal) is a measure of productivity. I recognize that programming is a creative process, so that part of your analogy is accurate, but a lot of programming is like "painting houses" - there is a clear objective, the means to accomplish it are well understood, and its a matter of getting it done. In that world, the quickest to do a good job is the most productive.

This is a matter of professional development. No question about it. The reasons for slowness can be many, but ultimately slowness absent improved quality/accuracy or completeness = lower productivity.

Slowness (all other things being equal) IS a measure of productivity. No one wants to pay a painter who takes 10 days to do what another painter does equally well in 4 hours (unless paying by the job, but even then there is the wait time). No one wants to wait 4 hours for a chef to prepare his meal when it is expected to happen in 20 minutes or less. The same is true of "slow" programmers. Unless the slowness results in better quality (accuracy, completeness), it is a net negative.

Brilliant, insightful answer. It also provides an opportunity for the interviewee to highlight that they are insightful and tactful. And the phrasing is perfect because the person asking may really be trying to find out if any of the interviewers were particularly engaging or off-putting, or if some aspect of the process was thorny or helpful. For example: "I particularly liked the detailed calendar invitation with times, names and places in it. It made it easier for me to manage in my calendar than just an email (or letter) alone."

"Answer honestly" may well be the best answer, but you should explain what makes it the best answer. There are wide gradations to "honest" answers. Q: "Do you like my new hairstyle?" Could have many honest answers: "Yes", "Oh dear it's absolutely hideous.", "I prefer your prior hairstyle", "I'm leaning toward no, but give me some time to see if I it grows on me." "I don't want to answer that question" and "No!!!" (or "No!" or "No"). Each of those may be honest, but each phrasing has consequences.

While I don't disagree that "everything was fine/good/great" may be safe for the interviewee. It may also backfire. The follow-up question may be the vehicle that the company is trying to use to improve the process (and/or gauge your interest). If they believe something went badly (e.g. interruption/schedule conflict), your viability as a candidate may go down as a result of minimizing. The best hires are people who identify and address issues - quickly, concisely and tactfully.

I suspect you've exactly described why the question is normally asked. Smart companies realize that an interview is a two-way exploration. It's not enough that the company gets a good perspective on the candidate, the candidate must also get good insight into the prospective employer - the interviewers being the source of that insight. In follow up questions I know my name is mentioned positively and the result is that I am scheduled to conduct more interviews. Less chance of scaring away a potential employee!

"I don't intend to give others ..." and "the recruiter might tell other candidates so they can prepare for those questions. This reduces your own chances." That's a pretty low self assessment. It may be well that the questioner is trying to improve the experience (and acceptance rate) of interviewees. I probably would not offer "I found Bill abrasive and rude". But might say "I was called 20 minutes later than was scheduled." Or the audio quality was poor, etc. As an interviewer I VALUE assessments like this.

As one who has managed and written more than one "PIP" and as person who also has been on the receiving end of a PIP - and survived, all is not automatically lost. It WOULD be wise to LOOK into other employment rather than being too closely focused on the "plan". The goal is almost always to gain a better employee. But as some noted, it depends on where you work. It may be you'd be better suited to another job, or it may be you didn't apply yourself. In my case, I was depressed over losing the work (but not the position) that I loved most and the PIP was a wake up call.

This reminds me of a Dilbert comic strip. Dogbert says "I've discovered how not to spend my time with time wasting morons." Dilbert says, "Oh, how?" Dogbert replies, "I'll get back to you on that." That's essentially the "stock reply" - but in a rude form. Make it kinder and gentler.

In the old days, we had this thing called a telephone. When it rang, people felt morally obligated to answer it - and thus we have a proliferation of telemarketers. We also have these things called doors. When people knock on them, we feel obligated to answer the door - and thus we have a proliferation of sales people. YOU get to decide the frequency of your answers and determine the priority of the questions. As several have said, reply when you must, and in other cases, say "let's discuss those other things on Monday" and create a standing meeting for the nebulous stuff.

As @James pointed out, interviewers are people too... You may have come across an interviewer who is distracted by a difficult work or personal situation, or who just isn't great at talking. Or one who was told to focus on some specific aspects and was already well satisfied by the answers given but felt the need to fill time until the next interviewer took over. It's also possible that there is a backchannel going where the recommendation to make a hire has ALREADY been made. It's happened during the course of some of my interviews.

The OP didn't imply that there was a lengthy period of non-interaction, but that interaction seemed one of losing interest. @coblr A 5-minute answer when 1-minute answer is expected is telling. Another interview strategy is to ask "imprecise" questions to see how the candidate navigates. In technical work it is rare to have a concisely defined problem. After repeated failures to seek clarification I would cut an interview short rather let it drone on.

I'd caution anyone to not "Act interested" if you're not interested. Unless you're a great actor, that will come across as snobbishness, aloofness, and stilted. One way to not be perceived as rude is to engage the interviewer: "What is the best thing about working here?" or "What is the camaraderie like here?"