The interview process is quite lengthy and it took a month. In total there are 4 steps: 1. Interview with HR, just talking about the role, why I am a good candidate, etc; 2. Case Study: had a 4 steps case study, first one to search and talk about four ways how someone can save money buying in an online website, next it is proofreading, then they ask me to organize coupons and how I would put in the website, and last to analyse data and talk about. 3. Passing the task, I had an interview with a senior copy and the team lead. Where again we talked about the role, why would I be a good fit, what do I want to get better, and etc. Very common questions about the role you are applying to. Both of them talked very highly about the task made. 4. Lastly, I had a talk with the head of GSG in London. Going again about role, questions about situations in work, why gsg, etc. This person also mentioned my task and praised my work. I didn't receive an offer, and in the feedback they told me my writing in the case study of the second step was not as good as the others candidates. Now, why put me thru a 3rd and 4th interview if they didn't like my writing in the task? Why my task was so praised in the process? Waste of my time. Mind you they never talked about salary, benefits, location of the office or others. And they called me for both roles junior content editor and editor 1. Felt very confused in the process for which role they would be putting me in the process, as the e-mail mention "Editor" and next one would say "Junior Content Editor".