Application and first touch with recruiter: Recruiter contacted me by linkedin and request to apply in a form online. Recruiter was soft and capable to communicate effectively and in time. All good. Recruiter Interview: The first interview with recruiter was more related to my resume and past experience, benefits the company has to offer and expected salary. A few questions about agile and testing were asked. Technical interview: The 100% technical interview, the interviewer questions were very ambiguous with no defined scope. Questions needs to be better rewritten and redefined. Long In-house interview: *By mail, recruiter explained the stages of the in-house interview, to know what to expect. The real interview process and stages were different and unexpected. *The first stage (2 hours long aprox) was related to career experience and current job. Is not ethical that tacit company is requesting to explain step by step the internal processes (with flowcharts) of candidate's current job, instead of valuate candidate experience. This experience makes me wonder if I was the interviewed or if the company who i work for currently was being evaluated. There are no need of this kind of explanations if interviewer ask key questions, for example. *For the second stage with different interviewers was related to problems resolutions/quiz. Statements requirements was not clear, understandable and not related to software development. "If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”-Einstein. Candidates may have strong capabilities for solving day to day scenarios related to the job who will be hired for rather than this kind of problems. Also the interviewer changed aspects of the scope every often, and the solutions provided were different every time making this experience exhaustive by another 2 hours approximately. It seems they are expecting problem should be solved exactly with the solution they are expecting. And when i asked how I will be evaluated with this kind of exercises, they explained to me there are no wrong answer and they are evaluating how the way of candidate thinks..... for me this was highly contradictory... *At the end of the second stage interviewer explained we will move out to the next stage of the process but suddenly the other interviewer came back and leave me out of the building. The candidate should also know in advance if the in-house interview process can be terminated at anytime, promises of passing to the next stage by the same interviewers are considered rude. The whole process creates the expectation of a full day interview. I consider rude that one interviewer tells you you are going to the next stage and suddenly another person kicks you out of the building. In general, I believe there are no need for such long in-house interview process if the first interviewers does the job well, key questions will be asked and not wasting candidate's time in the process and being treated with rudeness.