The process began with a 1-hour phone screen, which focused on my resume and system questions. This was followed by a short coding question administered via Collabedit. The interviewer kindly pointed out a minor mistake I made in the coding question, allowing me to correct it (it was a simple error). He was very pleasant and easy to understand.

Next, I proceeded to an on-site interview consisting of six 1-hour rounds. These included one round on communication, two on system design, one with the hiring manager, and one on coding. A lunch break was also scheduled.

Notably, I had two interviewers scheduled for four of the six rounds, but one interviewer did not attend two of these sessions.

Based on feedback from the recruiter, I perceive the system design questions as more of a mind-reading exercise than a true assessment of analytical skills. One of my system design interviews was with two interviewers who seemed to lack experience. I may have provided an answer they did not anticipate. I addressed every potential weakness of my design they raised, although they did not allow me to fully elaborate on my thoughts. The recruiter's feedback indicated dissatisfaction with my answers because they did not align with their preconceived solutions. They stated I had "challenges" during those interviews, a characterization I respectfully dispute.

I understand that some questions are designed to be intentionally vague, prompting candidates to ask clarifying questions. However, in my case, the interviewers remained abstract, forcing me to provide answers in very general terms.

LinkedIn would benefit from assigning more experienced interviewers to assess candidates' skills. Given that most of my interviews involved two interviewers, it would be more effective to assign one experienced and one less experienced interviewer to each session.

I respect the NDA I signed with them and am therefore unable to provide more details.