The first-level technical interview was easy. It included a couple of standard algorithm questions and one simple question on classification.
The second round was an interview with a product manager. There were many questions about how to improve the experience for candidates and employees. It was going well until one of my answers. To make the experience better for employers, I suggested giving a number that specifies how related a resume is to the job description and also ordering resumes based on this number. This would make it easier for employers to find matching candidates quickly.
The interviewer felt this would be unfair to some candidates as they might be ranked at the bottom. This may be the reason I didn't advance to the next round.
I don't see why it is unfair, as I should be ranking job descriptions based on what I find most relevant. So, given that it is not unfair for other companies to come in the bottom, why is it different for candidates? Also, it's not as if companies can't see all resumes. Since ATS filters non-relevant candidates, this is much better than an ATS that doesn't even give recruiters a chance to see them.
Refer to the description in the interview process.
The following metrics were computed from 3 interview experiences for the Indeed Software Engineering Manager role in Austin, Texas.
Indeed's interview process for their Software Engineering Manager roles in Austin, Texas is extremely selective, failing the vast majority of engineers.
Candidates reported having very negative feelings for Indeed's Software Engineering Manager interview process in Austin, Texas.