The last time I interviewed at Google (because they approached me, and I begrudgingly let an recruiter convince me that this time would be different) the interviewer was so awful that even though the recruiter agreed and got approval to ignore the technical interview and move on to the management interview, I declined to continue the process, and subsequent calls from Google recruiters ever since has been met with a description of what happened last time and how I've permanently lost interest.

The problems posed were all "gotcha" type problem where either you'd read the solution or you'd most likely end up with a decent but suboptimal alternative, or where the recruiter asked for knowledge about toally obsolete things (e.g. I was asked about the structure of an inode in UNIX v6 - I told him I didn't know it but gave a general response about the type of information Unix-y systems keep in inodes, and with more detail about Linux; to add to it, for the role in question a knowledge of filesystem details was irrelevant).

Companies badly need to train a pool of interviewers, and track what kind of questions get asked and provide feedback on it. The vast majority of companies I see have a hiring process where some or all of the technical questions are down to the pet peeves of the interviewer or their manager.