That's according to Peter Norvig (pictured), Google's director of research, former Google director of search quality and former head of the Computational Sciences division at the NASA Ames research center. Here's what Norvig tells Peter Seibel in a Q&A in the new book Coders at Work (emphasis added):

One of the interesting things we've found, when trying to predict how well somebody we've hired is going to perform when we evaluate them a year or two later, is one of the best indicators of success within the company was getting the worst possible score on one of your interviews. We rank people from one to four, and if you got a one on one of your interviews, that was a really good indicator of success.

Small suggestion: Maybe Google can take these genius employees and have them, hmmm, we dunno, debug the frickin' broken interview process. Those who demanded they be hired should probably also be enlisted in the debugging effort. Writes Norvig:

Ninety-nine percent of the people who got a one in one of their interviews we didn't hire. But the rest of them, in order for us to hire them somebody else had to be so passionate that they pounded on the table and said, "I have to hire this person because I see something in him..."

Unfortunately, Google's had already done most of its hiring/rejecting and is now has been in layoff mode for much of this year. But, hey, there's always the next bubble.

UPDATE: A Goolge spokesperson disputed that the company was "in layoff mode," as we wrote, and stated: "To the contrary, we have been very explicit... that we are stepping our rate of hiring." Indeed, CEO Eric Schmidt stated in a discussion of Q3 results that "we're going to invest in people. We're already stepping up our hiring." That's in contrast to earlier this year, when Google had three rounds of layoffs from January through the end of March.

UPDATE 2: Norvig writes on his FriendFeed that we got "everything wrong" — this is just more evidence of how well the Google process works. Click through to read his full post (and our reply, underneath).

(Pic: Norvig, by Mathieu Thouvenin)

Norvig told Technology Review that one way Google tests its search accuracy is to "randomly select specific queries and hire people to say how good our results are. We train them on how to identify spam and other bad sites, and then we record their judgments and track against that."

Sound like your kind of gig? Warning: You must be comfortable in cold weather. As in North Pole cold. Or was that some other secret workshop?

Friday Night
Two googletards meet for Battlestar Galactica marathon on UPN but end up calculating their worth as the weekend stock price hovers around $415; after two epicurean Mike's Hard Lemonades, a message is sent to an internal developer list with an idea for (a) Google Base or (b) an old Yahoo/Microsoft product with a new AJAX interface.

Saturday Night/Sunday Morning
Senior VP Marissa Mayer returns to her email client from a night of weeping in front of a vanity mirror, costumed in lingerie and stilettos no one knows she owns; realizes (a) Google Base or (b) an old Yahoo/Microsoft product with a new AJAX interface is exactly what the company needs.

Monday Morning
CEO Eric Schmidt receives idea at a weekly staff meeting; pretends to understand it; in a halfhearted attempt to save face, makes offhand remark about how processors are much faster than when he was in grad school at Berkeley.

Two Weeks Later
Upstart, 20-something business development and/or marketing Googlies learn about it at the Googleplex cafeteria; confuse it with a competitor for Oracle's database solution and/or a product that will take down Boeing. Spread it casually at Marina bars to all their other dotcom friends.

45 Days Later
Om Malik receives phone call; does investigation; dispells rumors that an aircraft is involved but still poses question: is this an Ebay-Killer??

46 Days Later
Michael Arrington publishes "exclusive" screenshots on TechCrunch; says it lacks features which his Web 2.0 company Edgeio has; provides an irrelevant recommendation for Zooomr or Skobee.

47 Days Later
Zawodny blogs; laments that Yahoo had this idea in 1999; considers quitting; instead posts excel spread sheets cataloging (a) his weight loss (b) his Cessna's mileage.

48 Days Later
Chaos ensues at Microsoft, Yahoo, and/or Ebay; Fox buys Myspace anyway; Steve Ballmer throws a chair.

49 Days Later
John Battelle's intern discovers rumor, "breaks" story; Schmidt denies rumors to the New York Times; says Google is not out to displace any other company.

2 Months Later
Google blog announces a product which will displace some other company; Google engineers realize this is actually (a) Google Base or (b) an old Yahoo/Microsoft product with a new AJAX interface. Lose heart; but add it to their del.icio.us pages anyway.

2 Months and 1 week Later
Wall Street clods doubt Google after much inquiry; stock drops to $385; panic at the plex.

2 Months and 2 weeks later
Mayer holds damage control press event; research director Peter Norvig shows pictures of caseless servers last used in 1999; claims computers without cases are much more efficient; "70/20/10" is bandied about along with shrimp cocktail.

2 Months and 3 weeks later
CFO Reyes figures out math to make Google meet quarterly expectations; considers the follical implant surgery but in a late, lonely night at the office, rediscovers appreciation for the Jean Luc-Picard look.

3 months later
The math works; on a Friday the stock balloons to $415 in after hours; coincindentally, two googletards meet for another Battlestar Galactica marathon on UPN...