Standard initial screen via recruiter. The recruiter I worked with was pleasant and comparatively a good experience relative to the standard crop. The rest was downhill. I was given an initial 6 week timeline for response. That's fine, except relative to the prior which severely irked me. This was a very basic role - any engineer with the most minute level of experience understands that HubSpot "development" is an abuse of the word seeing as this is entry level coding that barely ranks. To any bonafide engineer this is low tier side work. So, I was interested in the role as it was posted at ~140 upper band for easy peazy work 100% remote. Who wouldn't take it? Free money. Particularly in marketing technologies where most of the "agencies" out there can't even afford to pay 2/3rd that rate due to their business model (taking clients they shouldn't and then proceeding to immediately offshore it to get it over the finish line at the lowest dollar) Again, per prior, this is why the role was attractive. The response I received was downright absurd and frankly just lazy - which I'll explain the context of below. I provided a very tailored HubSpot resume listing extensive certifications (I have 2 dozen and have performed dozens of massive repair jobs for egregiously bad offshored work. You'd be *significantly* hard pushed to find anyone that knows the platform and it's peccadillos better - relevant later), my background, agencies worked with, subcontracted for, and personal / passion projects demonstrating broad swathes of experience in both a technical and managerial passion given my consulting background having to manage areas far beyond a standard engineer's role (that punches in, pushes, and clocks out) per client, project, and management experience. Beyond this I was a full stack engineer for 5+ years building low level web apps from the ground up from full integrations to APIs, websites + backend services powering them, and doing the deployments / cloud services in smaller dev shops as a multi-hat dev. So, clearly I have experience. Particularly relative to such low tech as described prior. Beyond this, I went above and beyond, and I regularly provide technical audits of these marketing-esque environment firms related to their website and it's problems with a few intents. 1. It's a good quick tech exercise to brush up because 99.999% of them are egregiously bad and poorly built per the general low tier talent in marketing with next to zero technical acumen beyond the "seo guru" that generally gets hired to do web stuff - often from marketing managers that don't know any better 2. It tells me what your internals look like and what your QA / pipelines etc might look like and as a result the internal competency of staff I might be working with 3. It tells me whether you cared enough to actually do a manual review and potentially have a discussion surrounding deeper dives into technical as it relates to the direct assets, patterns, ethics, and efficacy of things I would be working on day-to-day So, to be so utterly lazy that you didn't even bother to open a 15+ page doc outlining significant accessibility and performance problems - stemming from some of the most basic engineering mistakes I've seen in awhile - is absurd. e.g. - Literally their menus don't even function on their website from huge offscreen overflows to literally blocking the entire interactivity on tablet-esque devices per lack of responsive design and broken closure. That's one of the smaller problems I could find in a 10 minute gloss. The others were much worse. And, this org apparently has a "QA" department with a head and analyst (see comments below). Whether this is tech or internal / legal oriented I can't say. There's not that much info. Regardless, this is some of the most baseline tech QA you could do. Having these occur in any capacity is fundamentally inexcusable. What is MORE absurd is that the canned cookie cutter reject response I got was citing "competitiveness" for the role - given the prior - with no additional info after expecting your candidates to potentially be strung along for 6+ weeks per the given timeline And you couldn't even be bothered to give a 1 sentence summary in terms of feedbacks and clearly just F-Scanned. If you look at the roster of people hired at this org - and you have real tech experience - I'll let you take a gander as to why that is. If you're looking to do real things and real engineering with some baseline efficacy I'm not sure this for you.