The entire process for this non-senior role was almost two and a half months and consisted of four 45-minute Microsoft Teams calls. While the job posting itself was only posted for a short time, the entire hiring process was extremely long because Journal Technologies seemed to have scheduling issues. The hiring process for a non-senior role should not take over two months. This is an issue noted by other reviewers as well. I sent a status update to the recruiter about eight days after my last interview, but I didn't get a response. A personalized email with a brief status would have been nice instead of ghosting me. I finally received a canned Rippling ATS system email today, 15 days after my fourth interview. Journal Technologies uses a Rippling ATS system, which includes a calendaring feature where applicants select their available dates and times for interviews from a block of seven days. I responded to those requests immediately, but I didn't receive interview dates until about five days after responding, and typically only received notice about two days in advance of an interview. Typically, when calendaring systems are used, I will get a confirmed interview date and time within 48 hours. It should not take four to seven days to finalize an interview because the interviewers should have already entered their availability into the calendaring system. This is the one place where automation should have been used. I suspect that there was a round of emails or meetings between rounds to decide the order of interviews. This is disrespectful to the applicants who are often trying to juggle interviews with multiple companies. My recommendation for applicants is that when you receive these scheduling requests, select dates and times at the end of the offered date range so that you can keep your schedule clear for other interviews. I had to keep sending revised schedules via Rippling to accommodate other employers requesting interviews during the same weeks. The four interviews I underwent were conducted by a recruiter, two separate interviews with senior team members, and finally, a group interview with two other team members holding the same title. I do not know if there was another interview round with a director because the recruiter didn't provide feedback during the process. They asked for writing samples - I provided links to my portfolio, which was on my resume. I also added updated content to my portfolio. Although I sent thank-you notes to the interviewers and provided the links mentioned above, I did not receive any responses from the recruiter or the team. I liked that the recruiter chose to use Teams for the first interview/screening since this is a more accessible format than a phone interview. The third interviewer was about 15 minutes late. I wasn't able to contact the recruiter via Teams or email for guidance. She was unwilling to reschedule the interview after announcing that she had a hard stop at the end of the hour. I wasn't able to ask any questions due to reduced time. She also asked some of the same questions as the prior senior writer, stating that the questions were required. She had technical issues with her camera, and then as soon as her video started working, my camera immediately stopped working (Swapping out a replacement didn't work). I tested my camera after the interview with Teams and Zoom, but I wasn't able to replicate the video problem because both the internal and external cameras worked fine. The recruiter didn't follow up after the interview, so I don't know whether the shortened interview without video negatively impacted me. This particular interview was difficult - some of the questions about rarely used Git commands were more suitable for a developer. Both senior technical writers were previously developers or engineers, so their questions reflected their backgrounds. Three of the interviews were mostly easy-going, although some questions were tough. The last interview consisted mainly of questions about soft skills and collaboration. None of the interviews included a demo or preview of their technical documentation, which meant I was never really sure what I would be asked to do. If you apply for a role at Journal Technologies, do not expect to receive personalized emails from the recruiter. Nor should you expect the recruiter to accept a LinkedIn invite to connect. While the CEO at its parent company, the Daily Journal, is now a treasured LinkedIn connection, the recruiter never accepted my invite. Connecting with applicants on LinkedIn seems like it should be part of a recruiting role. This didn't make me feel like I was a valued applicant. I suggest that Journal Technologies take the time to send personalized emails when sending rejection letters to applicants who have survived four rounds of interviews. Signing a canned rejection letter to a later-stage applicant with "Warm regards" when the recruiter or the hiring team hasn't made any effort to personally communicate with an applicant beyond canned Rippling ATS system emails is probably not good for the company's reputation. While I enjoyed meeting the team and would have loved working with them, I would hesitate to apply again to Journal Technologies due to the company's lengthy, impersonal interview process. My recommendation for applicants is that if you already have a job and aren't in danger of getting laid off soon, you might have the time and patience to wade through this long automated process for a non-senior role, but for those facing layoffs, I would skip applying to roles at Journal Technologies and find roles at places like Apple, SAS, or a legal publishing company that have a faster and more interactive hiring process.