A recruiter reaches out for a call to talk about your experience and the role. The next step was a 30-minute phone interview with a lead developer. They ask about your experience and some general technical questions. Nothing too intense for this. The person was transparent and said they would like to proceed with the next interview and the recruiter reached out to schedule it. The next stage was a technical interview with three people. This happened during the coronavirus pandemic, so this had to be an online video interview when they typically do an in-person interview. This included the developer from the previous call. This is where things led to a negative experience. Initially joining the call and greeting them was met with silence, no greeting or small talk. They seemed distracted and annoyed to be on the call, which kind of set the tone for the interview. I do not feel that the interview questions would accurately assess good candidates. Most were closed-ended questions that could be found in a simple search. It was either you know it or you don't, there really was not much room to show how you approach problems or build software on those questions. Typically this isn't an issue, but the interviewers pressed further on topics that I flat out did not know the specific answers to. My resume did not exaggerate my knowledge or experience and I thought the job description lined up with that and they wanted to interview me (and presumably hire me). I did not feel that way in the interview because the questions and interactions really blindsided me. One of the interviewers started asking network questions about HTTP/HTTPS, DNS, TCP/UDP, ports, etc. I was completely taken off guard because I'm by no means a network expert, I'm a full-stack developer applying for a full-stack role. I have a general knowledge of those things, but I typically do not deal with them daily. The job description did not mention networking beyond "Collaborate with mobile, network, and security engineers." I thought the interview would be more focused on software development. They asked about a challenging situation that I encountered. I was attempting to explain it but I possibly did not explain it well or they were not engaged. Follow-up questions were confusing and the questions felt a bit combative. They didn't seem like they were trying to get a sense of how I approach a problem, but more so hammering on small technical details. One interviewer was not clear in their questions. They asked "what do you use for interfaces?" with no context. I asked for clarification and they said: "like tables and stuff." I asked for even more clarification and they said: "like inputs and checkboxes." Based on that I had to assume they meant user interface and CSS libraries, but it was still unclear. As it progressed, I was asked an innocuous question of what operating systems I use. I stated that I have always used Windows, dabbled in Linux but did not like to tinker with it, and settled on Windows/WSL for the best of both. They pressed further: "how do you create a user on the Linux command line." I...don't...know, I just said I did not like to tinker with Linux. Linux was not mentioned on the job posting. The extent I use Linux is for web development, not as an administrator. Next was Docker, which my answer was that I haven't used it beyond starting up someone else's container. Docker is not listed on my resume but it is on the job posting. It doesn't seem like learning about Docker would be a huge stumbling block for a new hire but they chose to focus on it despite my lack of knowledge. They continued with Docker questions. I would have preferred they acknowledge my lack of experience in Docker (even if it was a negative) and move on with the interview instead of going deeper. In the last few minutes of the interview, there was a coding exercise. Simple question, take in a string and return true or false if it is a palindrome. I understood the problem and explained my thought process. I had a few small details wrong but with feedback given I was able to acknowledge them, explain what went wrong, and address them. It seems like a good company with good people. However, I think their interviewing process could use improvement. Even if a candidate answered everything flawlessly, I don't see how they could give a resounding "Yes, we want to hire this person" because they didn't get a feel for me as a teammate and as a software developer. It initially seemed like they valued having good, reliable people over someone's expertise in a particular technology, but the final interview seemed the opposite. Given the job description and initial phone interviews, it seemed like I was a good fit. Given the final interview and the questions asked, I was not a good fit. I wish I could have identified that earlier in the job description or they could have asked me those types of questions earlier in the process.