Thanks for the feedback. We regret that you had a less-than-enjoyable experience during your recent interview process at CobbleWeb. However, after carefully examining your complaints, we have to clarify a number of inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings. First, and most important, the engineering position was clearly advertised as a senior role. This was reiterated during the interview process, since this role carries a high level of responsibility for project outcomes. Yes, we do have a rigorous recruitment process, which has proven to be the best way to establish if there is a good fit between CobbleWeb and a particular candidate. This is obviously to both parties' advantage. Nobody wants to start a new job only to discover it was not what they initially made it out to be. And we don’t want to set anyone up for failure by putting them in a role they are not equipped for. You provided a detailed breakdown of the interview steps and their apparent duration in your case. It is worth mentioning that candidates progress through these steps at different speeds. It may take longer, especially if a candidate excels in some aspects, but there are still question marks over other critical areas of experience and/or expertise. This is true in your case, as there were concerns whether you could make the jump from your mid-level engineering experience (which offers good technical skills) to a more senior role, which requires a high-level product focus and deeper understanding of business logic. We do concede that the technical take-home exercise was a bit time-consuming for some candidates. We have therefore replaced it with a shorter live technical interview. With regards to " internal restructuring" and "requiring a more senior developer": This was mentioned to you in the regret email to (1) explain that due to rapid growth there may be a future, more suitable, role for you with CobbleWeb, and (2) to reiterate the seniority requirement for the advertised role. You seem to have misinterpreted our message, but we do apologise if it was not clear enough. Finally, we pride ourselves on respecting candidates' time and effort by always keeping them in the loop. You admit as such when you refer to the detailed regret message you received. It is therefore disappointing that you decided to vent your frustration on Glassdoor, instead of accepting our offer of a meeting to discuss your concerns and clarify future opportunities with CobbleWeb. While we wish you well in your future endeavours, we are a bit sad that this issue was not dealt with in a more amicable, constructive (and dare we say, mature) manner. Hopefully some lessons have been learnt all around.

We regret that you did not enjoy your screening interview, but it does seem that you are trying to dictate how a company conducts its interviews? Just because a certain format worked for other companies, doesn't mean it will work for ours. Firstly, it is perfectly acceptable to ask some technical questions in the screening interview. They are a very necessary filter to gauge if a candidate qualifies for the more in-depth technical interview. In fact, if you took the time, you would have noticed that this is explicitly indicated in our recruitment FAQs: https://www.cobbleweb.co.uk/team/frequently-asked-questions-working-at-cobbleweb/#recruitment-process As for not being introduced properly, all our interviews follow the same structure and are recorded for quality purposes. They include a brief introduction to CobbleWeb and the opportunity to ask questions at the end of the interview. We don't book back-to-back meetings for this very reason, so that candidates have sufficient time to ask questions. In addition, our interview invite contains detailed information about the company: Company Focus | Clients | Tech Stack | Our Software Development Approach | Job roles You can also visit our dedicated Team portal to learn more about worklife at CobbleWeb. Aspects covered include: our product discovery process, your influence on technical decisions, and our recruitment steps. Candidates are of course welcome to email through queries, before or after the interview. In fact, we really appreciate those who do. Did you do so? It also needs to be noted that the purpose of our screening interview is to verify if a candidate ticks the minimum requirements boxes. That’s why we generally keep them short and sweet (30 minutes) so that no one's time gets wasted. Subsequent interviews (product and technical) are more appropriate for deep dives into specific aspects of the role and the company. We always welcome constructive feedback, but after careful review of the facts we do feel that this negative review has its roots in an unsuccessful candidate who is unwilling to accept their unsuitability for the role in question.