Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheMagicHorsey | Hacker News Reader

I sympathize with you. My Google interview process took over 6 months, consisted of over a dozen interviews, including going to their campus twice, and resulted in a no-offer with no explanation.

This was the second time I was interviewed by Google.

They have some good people, but they have become bureaucratic and they really don't care that much about what you, as a potential recruit think.

I complained to some friends of mine that work at Google and they were furious at how I was treated. They talked to some people internally. They said they would fix things, but I think its just a huge problem.

They are hiring a lot, and their HR processes aren't very good.

They have some good teams though.

View on HN

I had the same experience. They never told me that I didn't get the job. I ended up calling them a few weeks after my last interview and they actually lied and said, "Well, we left a message on your voicemail." No, they didn't. I checked my cell phone and there were no missed calls and no voicemails. I also have (a gmail) email account, and they didn't email me.

When asked why they weren't interested (so I could work on whatever was the problem), they wouldn't tell me. They said it was proprietary information. I can only guess that was because of my salary requirements, since nothing else makes any sense. But it was really crappy of them. Then they continued to call or email me every 3 months for the next 3 years asking me to come in for more interviews. No thanks!

I was also disappointed to see their offices. (I'm in SoCal.) Everyone had open cubes! Ack! Not even walls around their office space. Do not want!

It's extremely rare that a company will tell you why you failed, because it increases the risk of lawsuits. It might help you a little, and it might hurt them a lot, and so things play out from there.

It sucks balls, but it's unlikely to change.

This is an insidious myth, not supported by evidence.

Facebook gives candidates substantive feedback on each interview.

What is the actual reason that most big tech companies give no feedback? Is it just to avoid wasting time and having to deal with a potentially disgruntled candidate? I would be happy if they at least sent an email from a no-reply address giving a list of feedback and then ending the discussion there.

I went to their office in Venice on an unofficial tour thanks to a googler friend of mine (thank you!) and at the time also noted that I would not want to work there.

I know someone who made it through 8 interviews before being told no. I also know 2 others that were hired but have no idea how long it took them. I still wonder what it is that makes us want to give up so much of our own time for their interview process. Do they really treat employees that much better than other companies? I bet there are a lot of startups that would make me just as happy. Is it just for name recognition? Maybe they make the processes arbitrary difficult so that only those who really want to work for Google actually follow through?

"Maybe they make the processes arbitrary difficult so that only those who really want to work for Google actually follow through?"

I think it comes down to the attitude that they'd rather have a bunch of false negatives than one false positives. Since there is extremely high supply of qualified applicants they probably don't feel like their bizarre hiring process hurts them at all. Some people will get turned off by their hiring processes, but for everyone one of those 10 times as many will jump through those hoops.

Over time I think Google's hiring processes absolutely do hurt them. The best of the best in the Computer Science world have many, many opportunities and they simply don't have to put up with nonsense. If Google is one of 10 suitors for an exceptional candidate and they take 6-8 months to make a decision, that candidate may already be long gone, just like the OP.

For now I think Google can get away with it but I feel like in a few years we're going to be seeing articles about Google's 'brain drain'.

It may already be happening... where if not on HN would you find a community with a bunch of the best of the best in software? And when was the last time we saw a post anywhere on here about somebody having a positive experience interviewing or working for Google? Or anywhere else on the internet for that matter?

I can see how it's difficult to screen out on the employer side when you're that big and prominent, but the first people who get screened out with this kind of stuff are the people with skills and self-respect.

I'm probably far from being a top-tier software person, but I'd like to think I've learned to respect myself. There are way too many good companies with competitive pay and sane hiring processes to put up with being jerked around by Google, especially when the result is probably to be just another cog in the Google machine. The benefits may be nice, but money will buy you all of the laptops and gourmet lunches you want. It won't buy you respect.

> "For now I think Google can get away with it but I feel like in a few years we're going to be seeing articles about Google's 'brain drain'."

I feel like we're already there. A few years ago everyone was trying to work for Google, but I rarely hear about them in conversations nowadays.

I'm not going to puff a lot of hot air about how awesome I am - but I do get a lot of interest whenever I'm on the market, and Google's process is simply too slow and too convoluted to interest me. Though Google pays well they, by a long shot, not the only players paying within their range.

The last time I was on the market I was able to line up phone screens within 2-3 days of first contact, and on-sites the same week or the week after. Companies would decide on an offer/no-offer/more-talk-needed disposition within a day or two of the on-site.

And all of these were companies paying at the top end of market, working on cool products with roles that would offer a lot of fulfillment.

I just don't see why I'd put up with months-long processes getting hopped from one recruiter to the next and having endless exhausting interviews.

I would think it's almost like a sunk cost situation. If you keep getting called back for interviews that is normally a good sign that you're on track to get the job. It's positive. The more you are called back the more positive it is. You keep doing it because you're so close. Of course, you don't know that in reality you're just being sloshed through some bureaucratic machine that isn't operating by the same logic.

A cynical viewpoint, but presented for balance. Think of the effect having worked for Google has on those outside the tech industry. Or even outside the top 10% of the tech industry.

Do a few years at Google, then The google brand can open doors for you. You may treat Google a bit like McKinsey is for business types.

I see that as a big reason people want to work for Google. Once Google vets you basically everyone else sees that as a big plus in your next job hunt.

In most places, you apply directly to the team you would be working for, and once they have decided they want you, it is in their interest to push the bureaucracy on your behalf, so things tend to move (at least somewhat) briskly.

But that's not how it works at Google. You apply to a broad category of jobs, and only after Google has decided they want you do they try to figure out what team gets you. During the screening process no one inside the company has a stake in you, so no one is pushing the bureaucracy, which means things move slowly.

If Google wanted to change all of this, they could, but I suspect not much will be done. Google has a lot of highly qualified applicants and even though their process is frustrating, the output of their hiring pipeline is a very fine set of engineers. So Google doesn't have much incentive to change.

Ditto over a dozen interviews, but at Facebook. It's not just Google.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com