Take out number seven. Reference checking is a waste of time...candidates always give you contacts who will tell you how they've walked on water and didn't get wet. Not to mention, the more litigious our society becomes the less likely it is you're going to find out ANYTHING from a reference (not that whatever information we've ever gotten from references is useful).
I'd add a few:
1. The candidate only talks in generalities about his/her technical skills. Worse yet, when subjecting the candidate to a technical interview he/she displays little knowledge of a listed skill. I can't tell you how many people I've interviewed who've claimed knowledge of a particular technology, then I find out through some simple questions that the reality is they merely tripped over a book on the subject on the way out the library.
2. This is a corollary to number four...the candidate can't articulate or quantify the value of his/her work. Not knowing where your job fits into the strategic whole nor why you're doing what you're doing is usually the sign of someone who is content to just phone it in.
3. The candidate merely responds to questions and asks none of his/her own. You don't want to know anything about me, my department, your potential colleagues, your possible customers, how we do things, what the daily workload would be like? The door works the same way on the way out as it did on the way in, only backwards.
4. The candidate displays personality traits, idiosyncracies, or eccentricities that make you as an interviewer nervous he/she will not fit into the group interpersonal dynamic. You can teach anyone anything...knowledge and skills, that is. You can't teach someone how not to be a jerk. Never hire anyone who'll upset the apple cart to the detriment of all.
Keep Up with TechRepublic